Friday, December 4, 2020
Judge orders restoration of DACA, opens program to new applicants
Camilo Montoya-GalvezA federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to fully restore an Obama-era initiative that protects undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children from deportation, requiring officials to open the program to new applicants for the first time since 2017.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn instructed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to post a public notice by Monday that states the department will accept and adjudicate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) petitions from immigrants who qualify for the program but are not currently enrolled in it.Garaufis also instructed officials to grant approved applicants work permits that last for two years, instead of the one-year period proposed by the Trump administration over the summer. An estimated one million undocumented immigrant teens and young adults who qualify for DACA on paper could soon apply for the program in the wake of Friday's order, according to lawyers who sued the Trump administration. Johana Larios was about to leave her home to buy diapers for her two-year-old daughter when she learned of Friday's order. The 26-year-old Mexican immigrant and Staten Island resident said the Trump administration suspended DACA in 2017 two days before she intended to apply for it. "I was so excited. I didn't know how to react. I'm thankful," Larios, a member of the advocacy group Make the Road New York, told CBS News, noting that she intends to request DACA soon. "I could go back to school, work. And to have that feeling of not being separated from my kids, that's the most important thing for me right now." Representatives for DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversees DACA applications, did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which could appeal Friday's decision, also did not immediately comment. Karen Tumlin, one of the lawyers representing DACA beneficiaries and prospective applicants, applauded Friday's ruling and called on the government to halt "its attacks on immigrant youth today instead of continuing its losing courtroom battle during the last days of the administration." "Today's ruling opens the door for more than one million immigrant youth who have been unfairly denied their chance to apply for DACA and secure their future in this country," Tumlin told CBS News. "Our brave plaintiffs have said from the beginning of this lawsuit that their home is here, and the court rightly recognized that today." Garaufis' order follows another ruling he issued in November that found acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf did not have the legal authority to close DACA to new applicants or shorten the validity period of the work permits and protections from deportation that the program's beneficiaries receive. Garaufis reached this conclusion after determining that Wolf's appointment violated the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Other federal judges have also raised questions about the legality of Wolf's appointment — which Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, determined to be invalid in August. The findings concluded that DHS did not adequately follow the rules governing the line of succession for the department's leadership. In September 2017, the Trump administration moved to end DACA, arguing that the program represented an overreach of executive authority. But the intended termination was put on hold by several federal courts, and this June, the Supreme Court ruled the administration had violated federal administrative law when attempting to end the program. In July, Wolf issued a memo outlining new guidelines for DACA while the Trump administration weighed whether to try to dismantle the program once again. On Friday, Garaufis set aside Wolf's memo, which included the ban on new applicants and limits on current protections and work permits. Garaufis' order means DHS will be required to administer DACA under the policies in place when President Barack Obama created the program in 2012. This would also allow current enrollees to request "advanced parole," which allows them to travel abroad and return to the U.S. According to government data, there are currently more than 640,000 DACA recipients, who are colloquially known as "Dreamers." The prerequisites for DACA eligibility include having no serious criminal convictions, arriving in the U.S before the age 16, living in the country since at least 2007 and earning an American high school diploma, a GED or serving honorably in the military. DACA does not allow its beneficiaries to adjust their status and obtain lawful permanent residency. President Trump has expressed sympathy for "Dreamers" on certain occasions, but his administration waged a years-long court battle to end DACA and did not accept several legislative proposals to place them on a pathway to U.S. citizenship. President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to shield DACA beneficiaries from deportation and to introduce another proposal in Congress that would allow them to gain permanent legal status if enacted. While Friday's order is a significant victory for DACA recipients and prospective petitioners, Republican-led states are currently asking U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to declare the program unlawful and terminate it. Hanen, a Republican appointee, blocked Mr. Obama's 2014 expansion of DACA, as well as the creation of another program which would have protected the undocumented parents of U.S. green card holders and citizens from deportation. Hanen has scheduled a hearing on this case for December 22.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-orders-restoration-of-daca-opens-program-to-new-applicants/ar-BB1bDNN1
Biden officially secures enough electors to become president
Opinion: Responding to Terrorism in France
President Emmanuel Macron and others there have been angered by outside criticism.In the wake of two horrific incidents of Islamist terrorism in France, President Emmanuel Macron and many of his countrymen have reacted angrily to criticism from abroad suggesting that French policies, and especially the French version of state-enforced secularism, somehow contributed to the lethal radicalization of a sliver of the country’s large Muslim population. The French reaction is understandable. The beheading of a schoolteacher and the murder of three churchgoers in Nice by Islamist terrorists cannot be justified by any grievance, real or perceived. Any attempt to lay the blame for these horrific crimes on their victims, or on national policies, is perverse. France, a country with a deep commitment to human rights and a robust tradition of self-criticism, offers many legal avenues of protest — witness the Yellow Vest movement that has periodically convulsed France for two years now. In the face of scathing criticism from Mr. Macron — expressed in a letter in The Financial Times, an interview with Ben Smith, the media columnist of The New York Times, and elsewhere — The F.T. and Politico Europe both removed articles questioning the role of French policies in Islamist violence. The core of the president’s complaint was that English-speaking countries that share France’s values were in effect “legitimizing this violence, and saying that the heart of the problem is that France is racist and Islamophobic.” It is not always fully appreciated outside France’s borders that the country is home to the largest number of Muslims in the Western world, more than 8 percent of the country’s total population. It also has a history of horrific terrorist attacks, including, in 2015, the raid on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the assaults on Paris cafes and entertainment halls that left 130 dead. Furthermore, France’s approach to ethnic minorities differs from the American model in fundamental ways not often understood. The American way is basically to promote the coexistence of different ethnic groups and religions; the French model, born of the French Revolution, is a universalist one in which people of all races, religions and backgrounds are treated without differentiation as citizens with equal rights. France maintains no register of people’s ethnicity or religion. A critical element of that model is the French concept of secularism, laïcité, a legacy of the French struggle against the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas freedom of religion in the United States began as a defense of religion against the state, France’s began with a defense of the state against religion. So French policies such as banning Muslim head scarves in school, perceived by many of the French as combating religious coercion, is often criticized in what the French call the “Anglo-Saxon” world as an attempt to forcibly impose French identity on immigrants. To its critics, the French model does too little to improve the lot of Arab and African Muslims living in suburban public housing, the “banlieues” where youth unemployment runs sky-high and many of the Islamist radicals are incubated. Conditions there have only worsened with the coronavirus pandemic. In a major speech in early October, Mr. Macron assailed the rise of “Islamist separatism” and promised a new law to defend France’s secular and democratic values. He also recognized the problem of the “ghettoization” of French cities where “we built our own separatism ourselves,” but the speech drew sharp criticism from French Muslims, including charges that it stigmatized Muslims, especially women and working-class Muslims. These are issues that should be open to debate, both within France and among mature democracies. But the debate cannot cross into any notion that any victim of Islamist terror “had it coming.” Mr. Macron is right to reject any such suggestion. But he goes too far in seeing malicious insult throughout the “Anglo-American media.” Serious news organizations in the United States, including The New York Times, have sought to offer full and nuanced reports on the terror attacks in France and on the French government’s policies. It was unfair of Mr. Macron’s international communications adviser, Anne-Sophie Bradelle, to suggest that The Times and The Washington Post said France was “at war with Islam.” Neither suggested this, or argued that France’s core problem was that it is “racist and Islamophobic.” But racism and Islamophobia are major problems in France, as they are in the United States, Britain and elsewhere in the Western world. So is Islamist terror, and the many issues of cultural integration, tolerance and competition posed by mass migration. These are the common challenges of the Western world, and no country has demonstrated a fully adequate response. Under President Trump, the United States government has woefully abandoned its tradition of openness to immigrants and refugees, and the president has deliberately fanned racism and intolerance for political ends. French news outlets have not spared Mr. Trump and his followers in their coverage of his administration, nor should they. The French media has also demonstrated a robust readiness to assail Mr. Macron’s policies, as it has done in recent weeks against the introduction of a “general security” bill that, among other things, included what looked like an attempt to protect the police from public scrutiny. After two incidents of police brutality caught on video, the bill was pulled back for a rewrite. That’s what the news media does, at home and abroad. It is its function and duty to ask questions about the roots of racism, ethnic anger and the spread of Islamism among Western Muslims, and to critique the effectiveness and impact of government policies. When terrorists strike, however, there is only one response. On that front, Mr. Macron, France is not alone. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opinion/macron-terrorism-france.html
Pakistani State sympathises all sorts of religious groups. Khadim Rizvi was just one of them
MUHAMMAD RANA
Since the establishment of Pakistan, each decade has seen different religious groups that have amplified religious-ideological sensitivities around various issues.Speculationspersist regarding the future of the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan after the demise of its chief Khadim Husain Rizvi. For many, this is the beginning of the end for the TLP as it has lost not only its leader but also the charisma he possessed. However, it would be unwise to underestimate the power of the TLP narrative.
The TLP under Rizvi has been an amalgamation of charisma and religious narrative; the organisation has eagerly wanted power either through entry into the corridors of authority or recognition of the influence of its religious zeal and street power on politico-ideological and policy matters. However, it is not the first organisation with hard-line, religiously inspired motives and ambitions to have emerged. There are at least 247 religious groups and parties operating in the country that have more or less similar motives and agendas. The inception phases of many of these groups have also been similar; they largely grew from either the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat movements of the 1960s and 1970s or sectarian groups’ campaigns of the early 1980s, which deepened the sectarian divide in society. These groups also had firebrand leaders who nurtured religious narratives, and the TLP has banked upon the same ideological arguments.
Since the establishment of Pakistan, each decade has seen different religious groups that have hedged or amplified religious-ideological sensitivities around various issues. But the finality and honour of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) have remained the most important themes for sensitising the people. The TLP, however, organised aggressive street protests and choked federal and provincial capitals. In recent history, the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) led violent protests in 1989 over the issue of Salman Rushdie’s blasphemous novel. From 2005 to 2012, it was the banned Jamaatud Dawa which mobilised and brought together religious organisations under the banner of the Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz-i-Hurmat-i-Rasool over the issue of the blasphemous images of the Prophet published in different European countries. The Barelvi parties remained very instrumental in all these campaigns mainly in Karachi and Lahore. In Karachi, it was the Sunni Tehreek that led such protests and in Lahore several small Barelvi parties remained part of the JuD-led alliance.
Apart from the debate about the future of the TLP, another issue remains crucial and this is about the state’s inability to deal with such groups. State institutions have sympathy for all sorts of religious groups, except when they start challenging their turf. The TLP had been testing the nerves of state institutions for a long time and the state adopted its conventional approach of appeasement and pressure whenever TLP supporters came out onto the streets. The disadvantage of the approach is that religious groups seek legitimacy and political power whenever the state makes an agreement with them. Khadim Rizvi had made a deal with the government just a week before his death, which was a big gain for his party, though the government had denied that it is bound to follow the agreement. Such commitment gives the impression that the state institutions are not capable of chalking out a long-term strategy to deal with such groups for whom they may have some other political utility.Meanwhile, Pakistan is looking to use its soft image as a diplomatic instrument for regional economic and political advantage, but the presence of radical groups on its soil makes this task complicated. The TLP launched its latest protest at a time when Pakistan had initiated an international diplomatic campaign against Indian state-sponsored terrorism. It should be noted that when Pakistan wanted the support of the world, especially the influential Western countries, a religious group was signing a deal with the government for curtailing ties with a key member of the European Union. There are other civilised ways of protest and Prime Minister Imran Khan had condemned the statement by the French president. But allowing an ambitious religious group to halt normalcy in the federal capital has hurt the national image most.
Extremism is the biggest enemy of the nation, which is not only weakening the already deteriorating governance system in the country but also undermining national dignity and Pakistan’s global image.https://theprint.in/opinion/pakistani-state-sympathises-all-sorts-of-religious-groups-khadim-rizvi-was-just-one-of-them/556768/
China’s Defense Minister Visits Pakistan
By Abhijnan Rej
Wei Fenghe’s visit has predictably led Indian analysts to claim that he had India in mind.
The Chinese defense minister, Wei Fenghe, visited Pakistan on December 1 and met with the country’s President Arif Alvi and Prime Minister Imran Khan, along with meeting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Nadeem Raza and Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa. Earlier this week Wei had also visited Nepal.
Writing on Wei’s Islamabad trip, China Global Television Network (CGTN) noted him as saying that “the China-Pakistan all-weather strategic cooperative partnership is unique in the world,” language consistent with how China publicly describes Pakistan. During Wei’s visit, both countries signed a memorandum of agreement around greater defense cooperation.
According to CGTN, during Wei’s visit, Alvi promised Pakistan’s support to China across issues including the South China Sea, Taiwan, and Tibet, and also to push ahead with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Interestingly, according to CGTN, Wei also said China is “keen to jointly cope with risks and challenges with Pakistan, firmly safeguard the sovereignty and security interests of both countries and maintain regional peace and stability,” language that would inevitably be interpreted in India as directed toward that country.
And this has indeed happened. The Hindustan Times (HT) quoted Indian experts as saying that Wei’s Nepal and Pakistan visits were with one eye on India, as New Delhi continues to wrangle with both Kathmandu and Islamabad. The newspaper noted a former Indian ambassador Vishnu Prakash, who had served in both Pakistan and China, as saying “China was letting Pakistan and Nepal know it is still with them and this was also a message to India.” “In Islamabad, the Chinese clearly wanted to add some steel to Pakistan’s spine,” HT also quoted Prakash as saying.
Back in May, the Indian army chief, General Manoj Mukund Naravane, created a small storm in Kathmandu with his remark at a think tank event that Nepal’s objections to an Indian road that connects the state of Uttarakhand to the China-India-Nepal trijunction in Lipulekh was at the behest of China. Naravane visited Nepal last month as New Delhi and Kathmandu inch toward mending fences.
Over the year, as the Ladakh crisis continued unabated, Indian strategic experts pointed to the possibility of a two-front war where China and Pakistan on one side, and India on the other, find themselves in a shooting conflict. What has added salience to this fear is that India-Pakistan ceasefire violations show no sign of slowing down, with heavy artillery guns being used by both sides with alarming frequency over the past few years. On November 13, 11 Indians – including five members of Indian security forces – were killed in ceasefire violations along the Line of Control in India-administered Jammu and Kashmir’s Gurez and Uri sectors.
Indian media reports have also noted China’s continued military support to Pakistan, including in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. In October, one of them noted that according to the Indian security establishment, China was helping Pakistan install a new surface-to-air missile system in the part of Kashmir it administers. China and Pakistan have a long history of military cooperation, which has included covert Chinese support for Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons program.
However, not all Pakistani analysts are convinced that China and Pakistan would be able, or willing, to jointly fight a war against India, fears of New Delhi’s defense establishment notwithstanding. Speaking at a virtual event organized by a New Delhi think tank on December 1, Ayesha Siddiqa noted that there is limited interoperability between the militaries of the two countries, and that both would not prefer a large conventional war with India. Instead, Siddiqa suggested, for Pakistan, China’s role is strategic as it manages to do what Pakistan hasn’t been able to: keep India in check.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/12/chinas-defense-minister-visits-pakistan/
بلاول نے کورونا وائرس کو شکست دے دی
بلاول بھٹو زرداری نے کورونا وائرس کی علامت ظاہر ہونے پر 26 نومبر کو ٹیسٹ کروایا تھا جو مثبت آیا تھا۔
کورونا وائرس میں مبتلا ہونے کی وجہ سے بلاول بھٹو زرداری نے 27 نومبر کو بختاور بھٹو کی منگنی کی تقریب میں بھی شرکت نہیں کی تھی۔
کورونا وائرس ٹیسٹ منفی آنے کے حوالے سے صوبائی وزیر ناصر شاہ نے بھی سوشل میڈیا پر تصدیق کی۔
واضح رہے کہ کورونا وائرس کے باعث چیئرمین پی پی پی، بلاول ہاؤس کراچی میں قرنطینہ میں تھے جبکہ انہوں نے آج دوبارہ ٹیسٹ کروایا جو منفی آیا۔
امکان ہے کہ بلاول بھٹو زرداری بارہ دسمبر کو لاہور میں ہونے والے پی ڈی ایم کے جلسے میں شرکت کریں گے۔
https://jang.com.pk/news/853703