&nbsp;The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/poland-offering-2-billion-to-host-us-military-base-donald-trump-166570"> deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland</a>, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia.

Despite their strong show of unity, Trump disagreed with Duda's attempt to force the retirement of some Polish Supreme Court judges, a decision last year that prompted protests. "No," Trump said when asked if he supported the move.

Trump announced the troop deployment at a joint news conference with Duda in the White House Rose Garden shortly after the two leaders signed a joint declaration affirming defence cooperation and watched a US made F-35 fighter jet fly overhead.

Duda, who is considering naming the US installation "Fort Trump," said the new influx of troops was needed because of Moscow's past aggression against Poland and to help solidify his country's ties to the West.

"Russia again is showing its unkind, unfriendly imperial face," he said. "Russia is always looking out to take our territory."

Trump said earlier the troop contingent could come from the US force in Germany, which he has accused of paying too little for NATO's common defence.

The decision by Trump represents an effort to cater to the interests of Poland, a key NATO ally, while not overly antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump would like to have friendly relations. He and Putin are to meet in Japan in two weeks.

"I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope that we're going to have a great relationship with Russia," said Trump.

The United States already has troops in Poland as part of a 2016 agreement with the NATO military alliance in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Poland's eastern neighbour Ukraine in 2014.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement welcoming the deployment.

"Today’s announcement is part of NATO’s measured, defensive and proportionate efforts to strengthen our deterrence and defence," he said.

Duda denied backsliding on democracy when asked about his attempt to remove the judges. He said some of them dated back to Poland's communist past and that he wanted to remove them as part of judicial reforms.

"This is a very complex issue," he said. "Everything that we were doing was aimed at retiring those people .. Let me assure you, freedom of speech is absolutely respected in Poland. Poland absolutely respects all constitutional standards."

With Trump to turn 73 on Friday, Duda wished Trump a happy birthday at an evening White House reception whose audience included Polish-Americans. Some in the crowd launched into a happy birthday song in Polish.

"This first term of your presidency will be the introduction to your second term," Duda told Trump.

The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia.

The US President Donald Trump pledged to Polish President Andrzej Duda on Wednesday that he will deploy 1,000 US troops to Poland, a step sought by Warsaw to deter potential aggression from Russia. Despite their strong show of unity, Trump disagreed with Duda's attempt to force the retirement of some Polish Supreme Court judges, a decision last year that prompted protests. "No," Trump said when asked if he supported the move. Trump announced the troop deployment at a joint news conference with Duda in the White House Rose Garden shortly after the two leaders signed a joint declaration affirming defence cooperation and watched a US made F-35 fighter jet fly overhead. Duda, who is considering naming the US installation "Fort Trump," said the new influx of troops was needed because of Moscow's past aggression against Poland and to help solidify his country's ties to the West. "Russia again is showing its unkind, unfriendly imperial face," he said. "Russia is always looking out to take our territory." Trump said earlier the troop contingent could come from the US force in Germany, which he has accused of paying too little for NATO's common defence. The decision by Trump represents an effort to cater to the interests of Poland, a key NATO ally, while not overly antagonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump would like to have friendly relations. He and Putin are to meet in Japan in two weeks. "I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope that we're going to have a great relationship with Russia," said Trump. The United States already has troops in Poland as part of a 2016 agreement with the NATO military alliance in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Poland's eastern neighbour Ukraine in 2014. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a statement welcoming the deployment. "Today’s announcement is part of NATO’s measured, defensive and proportionate efforts to strengthen our deterrence and defence," he said. Duda denied backsliding on democracy when asked about his attempt to remove the judges. He said some of them dated back to Poland's communist past and that he wanted to remove them as part of judicial reforms. "This is a very complex issue," he said. "Everything that we were doing was aimed at retiring those people .. Let me assure you, freedom of speech is absolutely respected in Poland. Poland absolutely respects all constitutional standards." With Trump to turn 73 on Friday, Duda wished Trump a happy birthday at an evening White House reception whose audience included Polish-Americans. Some in the crowd launched into a happy birthday song in Polish. "This first term of your presidency will be the introduction to your second term," Duda told Trump.

US will deploy 1,000 troops to Poland; Warsaw may call them 'Fort Trump'

Amidst peace talks and reconciliation efforts with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Trump administration on Wednesday told a Congressional subcommittee that its assistance to the war-ravaged country should not be treated as a "blank check".

"Our assistance is not a blank check," Alice G Wells Senior State Department Official for South and Central Asian Affairs has told House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation in a prepared statement on Wednesday.

The sub-committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing "US Interests in South Asia and the FY 2020 Budget" on Thursday.&nbsp;

"We expect the Afghan government will continue on a path of reform, and we will use the Afghanistan Compact as a means to monitor progress and discuss new reform objectives to tackle Afghanistan's biggest challenges," she said.&nbsp;

Afghanistan, Wells said, has made some progress on benchmarks in the Compact, including the conviction of high-level officials for corruption, independent management of security for the parliamentary elections, and improved government revenue collection. "Continued progress is needed," the US diplomat said.

President Donald Trump and the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have made clear that their top priority in the region is to end the war in Afghanistan through a sustainable political settlement that ensures that Afghanistan never again serves as a haven for terrorist attacks against the US or its interests.&nbsp;

"As we seek an end to the war, we are working with the Afghan government to define the parameters of a sustainable, long-term partnership with Afghanistan; civilian assistance will continue to play an important role," she said.

In recent discussions in Kabul, the Department of State and the Afghan government have agreed to focus US assistance on our highest priorities: furthering the peace process, ensuring Afghanistan does not serve as a terrorist safe haven, promoting Afghan self-reliance, and maintaining Afghan stability.&nbsp;

The US, she said, has smaller budgetary request for FY 2020 for Afghanistan and anticipates this having more focused portfolio.&nbsp;

However, significant prior year resources in the pipeline will allow US to avoid programme disruptions as they transition to a smaller portfolio and have flexibility to respond to a political settlement.&nbsp;

"We also stand ready to provide humanitarian support as needed, so that a natural disaster or a significant return of refugees won't undermine Afghanistan's push for peace and stability," Wells said.

"At the same time, the US is intensifying its engagement with partners," she said.&nbsp;

"At last year's Geneva Conference on Afghanistan, the United States called on donors to begin planning for post-settlement Afghanistan, and several countries have responded," she added.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Amidst peace talks and reconciliation efforts with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Trump administration on Wednesday told a Congressional subcommittee that its assistance to the war-ravaged country should not be treated as a "blank check".

Amidst peace talks and reconciliation efforts with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Trump administration on Wednesday told a Congressional subcommittee that its assistance to the war-ravaged country should not be treated as a "blank check". "Our assistance is not a blank check," Alice G Wells Senior State Department Official for South and Central Asian Affairs has told House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation in a prepared statement on Wednesday. The sub-committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing "US Interests in South Asia and the FY 2020 Budget" on Thursday. "We expect the Afghan government will continue on a path of reform, and we will use the Afghanistan Compact as a means to monitor progress and discuss new reform objectives to tackle Afghanistan's biggest challenges," she said. Afghanistan, Wells said, has made some progress on benchmarks in the Compact, including the conviction of high-level officials for corruption, independent management of security for the parliamentary elections, and improved government revenue collection. "Continued progress is needed," the US diplomat said. President Donald Trump and the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have made clear that their top priority in the region is to end the war in Afghanistan through a sustainable political settlement that ensures that Afghanistan never again serves as a haven for terrorist attacks against the US or its interests. "As we seek an end to the war, we are working with the Afghan government to define the parameters of a sustainable, long-term partnership with Afghanistan; civilian assistance will continue to play an important role," she said. In recent discussions in Kabul, the Department of State and the Afghan government have agreed to focus US assistance on our highest priorities: furthering the peace process, ensuring Afghanistan does not serve as a terrorist safe haven, promoting Afghan self-reliance, and maintaining Afghan stability. The US, she said, has smaller budgetary request for FY 2020 for Afghanistan and anticipates this having more focused portfolio. However, significant prior year resources in the pipeline will allow US to avoid programme disruptions as they transition to a smaller portfolio and have flexibility to respond to a political settlement. "We also stand ready to provide humanitarian support as needed, so that a natural disaster or a significant return of refugees won't undermine Afghanistan's push for peace and stability," Wells said. "At the same time, the US is intensifying its engagement with partners," she said. "At last year's Geneva Conference on Afghanistan, the United States called on donors to begin planning for post-settlement Afghanistan, and several countries have responded," she added.

Assistance to Afghanistan not blank check says US

With under three weeks to go before proposed&nbsp;talks&nbsp;between the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/americas/donald-trump-xi-jinping-and-trade-a-high-stakes-game-of-chicken-216697">Chinese and US leaders</a>,&nbsp;expectations&nbsp;for progress toward ending the trade war are&nbsp;low&nbsp;and sources say there has been little preparation for a meeting even as the health of the world economy is at stake.

President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;says he wants to meet with President&nbsp;Xi&nbsp;Jinping at the June 28-29 G20 summit in Osaka, Japan and will decide on whether to extend tariffs to almost all Chinese imports after that.

Though neither side has confirmed that a meeting will take place, investors worldwide who have seen over a trillion dollars wiped from global markets in the past month by the trade fight will be closely watching any interaction between the two men.

Relations have deteriorated since May when negotiations to end the US-Chinese trade disputes broke down, all but killing off the possibility of an agreement in Japan.

"The atmosphere is poisonous," one senior Beijing-based Western diplomat told Reuters, referring to China-US ties.

Sources familiar with the matter, including officials and diplomats in Washington and Beijing, say there has been a lack of preparatory work for the meeting, due largely to the increasing acrimony. The trade negotiating teams have not met since&nbsp;talks&nbsp;ended in stalemate on May 10.

The White House declined to comment on plans for a&nbsp;Trump-Xi&nbsp;meeting.

"Preparations&nbsp;for the G20 summit in Japan are ongoing. We have nothing to announce at this time regarding specific bilateral meetings," White House National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis.

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow&nbsp;told CNBC on Tuesday that&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;is hoping to "pick up where we left off" in the&nbsp;talks&nbsp;with&nbsp;Xi.

Trump&nbsp;said again on Monday that he expected the meeting to happen, and threatened more tariffs on Chinese imports if there is not enough progress or if&nbsp;Xi&nbsp;does not attend.

China is open to more trade&nbsp;talks&nbsp;but has nothing to announce about a possible meeting between the two leaders, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Monday. He said on Tuesday that China would "fight to the end" if Washington escalates trade fictions.

Sources said the two leaders are likely to have some kind of meeting but whatever happens in Osaka, it will be a downgrade from the possibility both sides feted just two months ago - when they hoped the&nbsp;talks&nbsp;would be the scene for the two presidents to sign a historic trade deal.

A senior Chinese official told US business representatives last week that&nbsp;preparations&nbsp;had yet to begin for either a&nbsp;Trump-Xi&nbsp;meeting or to resume trade negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the briefing said.

On the US side in recent years, the lack of preparation for a big meeting is not that unusual.&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;often attends important&nbsp;talks&nbsp;with little advance work and makes policy on the fly.

Xi&nbsp;may not even want to go into such a high profile meeting with an unpredictable outcome and facing the threat of more US tariffs on Chinese goods.

"For China, it's all about the protocol for&nbsp;Xi&nbsp;and making sure he is respected," said an Asian diplomat. "China will not want&nbsp;Xi to go into a meeting where he may be embarrassed."

Low Expectations

Eswar Prasad, a trade professor at Cornell University and a former head of the China department at the International Monetary Fund, said&nbsp;expectations&nbsp;from any&nbsp;talks&nbsp;were&nbsp;low.

"The best-case outcome from a&nbsp;Trump-Xi&nbsp;meeting, which seems a dubious proposition at this stage, would be an agreement for the two sides to resume&nbsp;talks," said Prasad, who is in touch with Chinese officials. "The prospects for even a temporary and&nbsp;limited&nbsp;ceasefire have dissipated and a prolonged period of trade and broader economic tensions between the two countries seems on the cards."

If&nbsp;talks&nbsp;go badly, both sides could raise tariffs on each other,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;could withdraw licenses for firms trading with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, and China might ban exports of rare earth supplies vital for high-tech products as well as take measures against US companies in China.

Trade negotiations broke down in May and the two sides raised tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of each other's imports.

Trump&nbsp;accused Beijing of reneging on promises to meet US demands to extend the protection of intellectual property, end state-sponsored cyber theft, open more markets to US firms, and reduce industrial subsidies.

China has said US demands are so extensive that they violate its sovereignty.

A source with ties to China's leadership said there was deep anger in the government and party about&nbsp;Trump's accusations of China backsliding, especially as Beijing thought it was on the verge of a deal.

The source likened the US response to the feeling of being jilted at the altar.

"You don't promise to marry someone and then back out at the last minute," the source, who meets regularly with senior officials, told Reuters.

Xi&nbsp;and&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;met last year in Buenos Aires and broke a prior impasse in trade&nbsp;talks.

The US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin drew parallels between the planned Osaka meeting and that encounter, telling Reuters that the pace of&nbsp;preparations&nbsp;for both meetings was similar.

But, unlike the current uncertainty over plans for the meeting in Japan, the White House confirmed the Argentina&nbsp;talks&nbsp;were taking place as early as six weeks in advance.

The US-China tension has gone beyond tariffs. The United States has sanctioned Huawei, sent its navy into the disputed South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, and made other public shows of support for self-ruled Taiwan.

The strains between Washington and Beijing are expected to make it difficult for diplomats to agree on the language of the G20 statement issued at the end of the summit.

Host country Japan and European Union countries are working with the United States on new World Trade Organization rules aimed at reining in "non market-oriented policies" including industrial subsidies, rules clearly aimed at China.

Beijing is expected to resist language in the statement that the United States may subsequently use against China in trade&nbsp;talks.

With under three weeks to go before proposed talks between the Chinese and US leaders, expectations for progress toward ending the trade war are low and sources say there has been little preparation for a meeting even as the health of the world economy is at stake.

With under three weeks to go before proposed talks between the Chinese and US leaders, expectations for progress toward ending the trade war are low and sources say there has been little preparation for a meeting even as the health of the world economy is at stake. President Donald Trump says he wants to meet with President Xi Jinping at the June 28-29 G20 summit in Osaka, Japan and will decide on whether to extend tariffs to almost all Chinese imports after that. Though neither side has confirmed that a meeting will take place, investors worldwide who have seen over a trillion dollars wiped from global markets in the past month by the trade fight will be closely watching any interaction between the two men. Relations have deteriorated since May when negotiations to end the US-Chinese trade disputes broke down, all but killing off the possibility of an agreement in Japan. "The atmosphere is poisonous," one senior Beijing-based Western diplomat told Reuters, referring to China-US ties. Sources familiar with the matter, including officials and diplomats in Washington and Beijing, say there has been a lack of preparatory work for the meeting, due largely to the increasing acrimony. The trade negotiating teams have not met since talks ended in stalemate on May 10. The White House declined to comment on plans for a Trump-Xi meeting. "Preparations for the G20 summit in Japan are ongoing. We have nothing to announce at this time regarding specific bilateral meetings," White House National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC on Tuesday that Trump is hoping to "pick up where we left off" in the talks with Xi. Trump said again on Monday that he expected the meeting to happen, and threatened more tariffs on Chinese imports if there is not enough progress or if Xi does not attend. China is open to more trade talks but has nothing to announce about a possible meeting between the two leaders, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Monday. He said on Tuesday that China would "fight to the end" if Washington escalates trade fictions. Sources said the two leaders are likely to have some kind of meeting but whatever happens in Osaka, it will be a downgrade from the possibility both sides feted just two months ago - when they hoped the talks would be the scene for the two presidents to sign a historic trade deal. A senior Chinese official told US business representatives last week that preparations had yet to begin for either a Trump-Xi meeting or to resume trade negotiations, a source with direct knowledge of the briefing said. On the US side in recent years, the lack of preparation for a big meeting is not that unusual. Trump often attends important talks with little advance work and makes policy on the fly. Xi may not even want to go into such a high profile meeting with an unpredictable outcome and facing the threat of more US tariffs on Chinese goods. "For China, it's all about the protocol for Xi and making sure he is respected," said an Asian diplomat. "China will not want Xi to go into a meeting where he may be embarrassed." Low Expectations Eswar Prasad, a trade professor at Cornell University and a former head of the China department at the International Monetary Fund, said expectations from any talks were low. "The best-case outcome from a Trump-Xi meeting, which seems a dubious proposition at this stage, would be an agreement for the two sides to resume talks," said Prasad, who is in touch with Chinese officials. "The prospects for even a temporary and limited ceasefire have dissipated and a prolonged period of trade and broader economic tensions between the two countries seems on the cards." If talks go badly, both sides could raise tariffs on each other, Trump could withdraw licenses for firms trading with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, and China might ban exports of rare earth supplies vital for high-tech products as well as take measures against US companies in China. Trade negotiations broke down in May and the two sides raised tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of each other's imports. Trump accused Beijing of reneging on promises to meet US demands to extend the protection of intellectual property, end state-sponsored cyber theft, open more markets to US firms, and reduce industrial subsidies. China has said US demands are so extensive that they violate its sovereignty. A source with ties to China's leadership said there was deep anger in the government and party about Trump's accusations of China backsliding, especially as Beijing thought it was on the verge of a deal. The source likened the US response to the feeling of being jilted at the altar. "You don't promise to marry someone and then back out at the last minute," the source, who meets regularly with senior officials, told Reuters. Xi and Trump met last year in Buenos Aires and broke a prior impasse in trade talks. The US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin drew parallels between the planned Osaka meeting and that encounter, telling Reuters that the pace of preparations for both meetings was similar. But, unlike the current uncertainty over plans for the meeting in Japan, the White House confirmed the Argentina talks were taking place as early as six weeks in advance. The US-China tension has gone beyond tariffs. The United States has sanctioned Huawei, sent its navy into the disputed South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, and made other public shows of support for self-ruled Taiwan. The strains between Washington and Beijing are expected to make it difficult for diplomats to agree on the language of the G20 statement issued at the end of the summit. Host country Japan and European Union countries are working with the United States on new World Trade Organization rules aimed at reining in "non market-oriented policies" including industrial subsidies, rules clearly aimed at China. Beijing is expected to resist language in the statement that the United States may subsequently use against China in trade talks.

Expectations low for Trump-Xi talks, preparations limited

The rupee appreciated by 8 paise to 69.38 against the US dollar in opening trade Wednesday, driven by easing crude oil prices and foreign fund inflows.

Forex traders said the weakening of the greenback vis-a-vis some major currencies overseas aided the local unit. However, a weak opening in domestic equities weighed on the domestic currency.

The rupee opened strong at 69.38 at the interbank forex market, then gained further ground and touched 69.36, displaying gains of 8 paise over its last close.

The local unit, however, pared some gains and was trading at 69.38, up 6 paise from its previous close at 1005 hrs.

The rupee had settled at 69.44 against the US dollar Tuesday.

Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) remained net buyers in the capital markets, putting in Rs 95.79 crore Tuesday, according to provisional exchange data.

Brent crude futures, the global oil benchmark, eased 1.43 per cent to US $61.40 per barrel.

Domestic bourses opened on a bearish note Wednesday with benchmark indices Sensex trading 202.24 points down at 39,748.22 and Nifty down 57.65 points at 11,907.95.

The rupee appreciated by 8 paise to 69.38 against the US dollar in opening trade Wednesday, driven by easing crude oil prices and foreign fund inflows. Forex traders said the weakening of the greenback vis-a-vis some major currencies overseas aided the local unit.

The rupee appreciated by 8 paise to 69.38 against the US dollar in opening trade Wednesday, driven by easing crude oil prices and foreign fund inflows. Forex traders said the weakening of the greenback vis-a-vis some major currencies overseas aided the local unit. However, a weak opening in domestic equities weighed on the domestic currency. The rupee opened strong at 69.38 at the interbank forex market, then gained further ground and touched 69.36, displaying gains of 8 paise over its last close. The local unit, however, pared some gains and was trading at 69.38, up 6 paise from its previous close at 1005 hrs. The rupee had settled at 69.44 against the US dollar Tuesday. Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) remained net buyers in the capital markets, putting in Rs 95.79 crore Tuesday, according to provisional exchange data. Brent crude futures, the global oil benchmark, eased 1.43 per cent to US $61.40 per barrel. Domestic bourses opened on a bearish note Wednesday with benchmark indices Sensex trading 202.24 points down at 39,748.22 and Nifty down 57.65 points at 11,907.95.

Rupee rises 8 paise to 69.38 vs US dollar in early trade

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government.

“We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States.

Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy.

To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico.

As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded.

At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants.

Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.”

Doing the dirty work 
 
As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America.

Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall.

The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement.

It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law.

According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico.

Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free.

Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US.

Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show.

Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants.

The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record.

Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings.

Mexico is not a safe country 
 
Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement.

Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country.

Canada and the US&nbsp;signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated.

Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements.

But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement.

Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees.

Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement.

The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population.

Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018.

Mexico must do more with less

The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain.

Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months.

The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog.

It will now have to do more with less.

Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011.

More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/migrants-will-pay-the-price-of-mexicos-tariff-deal-with-trump-118269">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is celebrating an agreement avoiding US tariffs as a major political and diplomatic triumph for his government. “We didn’t win everything, but we were able to claim a victory with there being no tariffs,” said chief negotiator Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s foreign affairs secretary, on June 9. The two neighbours have been at odds since United States President Donald Trump on May 30 threatened to hit all Mexican imports with steadily rising tariffs unless Mexico successfully halted the northward flow of Central American migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence through Mexico toward the United States. Approximately 80 per cent of Mexican exports are destined for the United States. Tariffs would have devastated Mexico’s economy. To keep its goods untaxed, Mexico had to convince President Trump that it was serious about stopping migration. After a week of frantic negotiations, Mexico said it would deploy up to 6,000 National Guard troops to its southern border with Guatemala to stop migrants from entering Mexico. As part of the agreement, a Trump administration program known as “Remain in Mexico,” which forces some migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed in the US, will also be expanded. At a June 8 rally “for the dignity of Mexico and friendship with the US” held in the border city of Tijuana, López Obrador pledged that Mexico will reinforce its southern border while still “applying the law and respecting the human rights” of migrants. Ebrard added at the rally that Mexico had emerged from a near trade war with its “dignity intact.” Doing the dirty work As a law professor who teaches human rights, I believe that dignity will come at great cost to both Mexico and to the migrants fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America. Many Mexican lawmakers, including allies of the president, have expressed outrage that their immigration policy is now bound by an “immoral and unacceptable” deal that effectively turns Mexico itself into Trump’s border wall. The agreement violates the campaign promises of López Obrador, who took office in December promising to protect migrants’ rights and pledging not to do the U.S.‘s “dirty work” on border enforcement. It also violates the Mexican Constitution and international law. According to international refugee law asylum-seekers with demonstrable fear of persecution in their home countries are entitled to seek protection in the place of their choosing. Mexican law goes further. As of 2011, legitimate asylum-seekers are entitled not just to seek but to be granted asylum in Mexico. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal. Both the current North American Free Trade Agreement and the newly signed – but not yet ratified – United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement require most trade between North American countries to be tariff-free. Even before the recent negotiations, López Obrador was already quietly complying with US demands to do more to prevent migrants from reaching the US. Between January and May of this year, Mexico detained 74,031 migrants – a 36 per cent increase compared to the same period last year under former Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto. The number of migrants deported from Mexico tripled from 5,717 in December 2018 to 15,654 in April 2019, government statistics show. Sending troops out to target migrants, as Mexico has now promised to do, will almost certainly result in the excessive use of force against these migrants. The Mexican National Guard is an untested new military police force with immigration enforcement powers. Its creation in early 2019 was highly controversial in Mexico given the Mexican military’s extraordinarily violent law enforcement record. Between 2007 and 2017, when troops were helping police fight Mexican drug cartels, the National Human Rights Commission received over 13,700 complaints of human rights violations committed by soldiers against civilians. These included accusations of arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings. Mexico is not a safe country Beyond avoiding tariffs, Mexico’s main victory in its negotiations with the United States appears to be having resisted pressure to sign a “safe third country” agreement. Under such an agreement, refugees are required to apply for asylum in the country where they first land and not the country where they ultimately want to settle. This means that one country can reject a person’s asylum application if they have already been granted asylum by another country. Canada and the US signed such an agreement in 2002, and Trump has been pushing Mexico to do the same since spring 2018. Under this proposal, thousands of migrants in Mexico who have already applied for asylum in the United States and are now waiting for an answer would see their applications invalidated. Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican Constitution and Mexico’s international human rights agreements. But it is not actually clear how the newly expanded “Remain in Mexico” program – the details of which have not yet been released – will differ in practice from a safe third country agreement. Migrants may end up staying in Mexico for years while they await their asylum hearing in the United States. During that period, Mexico will be responsible for housing, feeding and protecting refugees. Jorge Castañeda, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs from 2000 to 2003, has derided Mexico’s commitment as a “light” safe third country agreement. The mere idea that Mexico is safe is “a particularly cynical bout of wishful thinking,” as Mexican journalist León Krauze put it in a recent Washington Post op-ed. Mexico is one of the world’s most dangerous places. An estimated 33,000 people were murdered there last year – twice the average annual homicides in the United States in a country with less than half the population. Dozens of Central Americans have disappeared from migrant caravans journeying northward in Mexico. Over 90 per cent of migrants say they do not feel safe in Mexico, according to a survey of 500 Central American asylum-seekers conducted in February 2018. Mexico must do more with less The “Remain in Mexico” policy is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico, where the immigration system is already under enormous strain. Around 29,000 people applied for asylum in Mexico in 2018, according to United Nations data. This year, between January and March, Mexico received 12,716 asylum applications – 43 per cent of last year’s total in just three months. The Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance, which processes asylum claims, currently has a two-year backlog. It will now have to do more with less. Under López Obrador’s austerity policies, the commission’s 2019 budget was cut 20 per cent, to about $1 million – its lowest budget since 2011. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour – these are the ingredients of a refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory. (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Migrants will pay the price of Mexico’s tariff deal with Trump

<div class="content" itemprop="articleBody">
Defending the immigration deal the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-he-is-confident-mexico-will-try-very-hard-to-enforce-new-immigration-deal-225578/amp">United States</a> reached with <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/its-business-as-usual-at-mexicos-southern-border-despite-trump-deal-225581">Mexico</a>, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on Monday termed the agreement as a "significant win" for Washington and reflects "diplomacy at its finest."

"Frankly, it reflects diplomacy at its finest. It shows the enduring strength, too, of the relationship between our two countries. It's a significant win for the American people," Pompeo told reporters at a press briefing.

Reiterating US' stand on tough immigration, Pompeo said that migrants who crossed the southern border would be "rapidly returned" to Mexico and Washington will now have the "full-throttle" capacity to send asylum seekers back to Mexico.

"Those crossing the US southern border to seek asylum will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims. We've seen this before. We were able to do this to the tune of a couple of hundred people per day," he said.

"We now have the capacity to do this full throttle and engage this in a way that will make a fundamental difference in the calculus for those deciding to transit Mexico to try to get into the United States," Pompeo added. 
Talking about the immigration deal, the Secretary of State asserted that it underlined US' commitment to tackle illegal immigration at the southern border.

"The deal continues the Trump administration's commitment - the strongest by any administration in history - to confront the tide of illegal immigration and many other problems along our southern border, including the drug trafficking issues that transit there. The President is doing precisely what he said he would do," he said.

Pompeo said, "We agreed to a number of things, including the placement of 6,000 Mexican National Guard along the Mexican southern border. It's the biggest effort to date that the Mexicans have committed. It's something that we pressed for with them throughout the time of the negotiations." 
He said that both the US and Mexico will work closely to make the deal successful.

On June 7, President Donald Trump had announced that his administration reached an agreement with Mexico over immigration, owing to which tariffs on the Central American country were "indefinitely suspended," after days of gruelling negotiations between the two sides.

According to the deal, Mexico has agreed to strengthen its security presence at the southern border to stop the flow of Central American migrants from entering the US and boost intelligence sharing with Washington.

Mexico has also said that it would take stringent action against human and drug trafficking rings.

Trump had threatened to impose a five per cent tariff on all Mexican goods from June 10, which would increase by another five per cent every month and ultimately reach 25 per cent by October.
</div>

Defending the immigration deal the United States reached with Mexico, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on Monday termed the agreement as a "significant win" for Washington and reflects "diplomacy at its finest.

Defending the immigration deal the United States reached with Mexico, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on Monday termed the agreement as a "significant win" for Washington and reflects "diplomacy at its finest." "Frankly, it reflects diplomacy at its finest. It shows the enduring strength, too, of the relationship between our two countries. It's a significant win for the American people," Pompeo told reporters at a press briefing. Reiterating US' stand on tough immigration, Pompeo said that migrants who crossed the southern border would be "rapidly returned" to Mexico and Washington will now have the "full-throttle" capacity to send asylum seekers back to Mexico. "Those crossing the US southern border to seek asylum will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims. We've seen this before. We were able to do this to the tune of a couple of hundred people per day," he said. "We now have the capacity to do this full throttle and engage this in a way that will make a fundamental difference in the calculus for those deciding to transit Mexico to try to get into the United States," Pompeo added. Talking about the immigration deal, the Secretary of State asserted that it underlined US' commitment to tackle illegal immigration at the southern border. "The deal continues the Trump administration's commitment - the strongest by any administration in history - to confront the tide of illegal immigration and many other problems along our southern border, including the drug trafficking issues that transit there. The President is doing precisely what he said he would do," he said. Pompeo said, "We agreed to a number of things, including the placement of 6,000 Mexican National Guard along the Mexican southern border. It's the biggest effort to date that the Mexicans have committed. It's something that we pressed for with them throughout the time of the negotiations." He said that both the US and Mexico will work closely to make the deal successful. On June 7, President Donald Trump had announced that his administration reached an agreement with Mexico over immigration, owing to which tariffs on the Central American country were "indefinitely suspended," after days of gruelling negotiations between the two sides. According to the deal, Mexico has agreed to strengthen its security presence at the southern border to stop the flow of Central American migrants from entering the US and boost intelligence sharing with Washington. Mexico has also said that it would take stringent action against human and drug trafficking rings. Trump had threatened to impose a five per cent tariff on all Mexican goods from June 10, which would increase by another five per cent every month and ultimately reach 25 per cent by October.

Mexico immigration deal 'significant win' for US: Pompeo

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 11th, 2019

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). &nbsp;

The GSP was put in place in 1971, under which 13 developed countries provide duty-free access to designated products for beneficiary developing countries. &nbsp;

While most developed countries introduced the GSP in 1971, the US accepted this system of preferences in 1976, after the Trade Act of 1974 authorised the US president “to extend duty-free treatment to certain eligible products imported into the United States from beneficiary developing countries”. &nbsp;

The US extended GSP benefits to 104 countries before it removed India from the list of “beneficiary developing countries”.

The Trade Act of 1974 also outlined a set of conditions for determining whether any country should be designated as a beneficiary developing country.

These are: (i) a request by the country to be so designated, (ii) the level of economic development of such a country, (iii) whether or not the other major developed countries extend their GSP scheme to the country, and (iv) the extent to which the country has assured the US of equitable and reasonable access to its market and basic commodity resources. &nbsp;

These conditions gave the US trade administration discretionary powers. Alongside, the Act also introduced a mechanism that was to be used to review if specific products originating in the beneficiary developing countries could continue to enjoy the GSP benefits. &nbsp;

One of the key mechanisms is Competitive Need Limitations (CNL). This states that a beneficiary developing country could lose its GSP eligibility with respect to any product if the CNLs are exceeded. &nbsp;

There are two measures for CNLs: (i) when, during any calendar year, import of a particular product into the US from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the value of total imports of that product into the US, or (ii) exceeds a certain dollar value. As per the GSP rules, the dollar-value limit is increased by $5 million annually. The limit set in 2017 was $180 million.&nbsp;

There were indications since last year that the Trump Administration was taking steps towards eventually denying India the benefits under GSP. &nbsp;

The US president, on October 30, 2018, announced the decision to exclude 94 products from the list of GSP-eligible products, for 16 countries beginning November 1, 2018. &nbsp;

There were 50 products in the exclusion list in which India was the principal beneficiary. The targeted list of products for India was the largest among the 16 countries, whose products lost the GSP beneficiary status.

In March 2019, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the Trump administration’s intent to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country under its GSP programme since it was not complying with the “statutory eligibility criteria”. &nbsp;

India was targeted, according to the USTR, for its failure to provide the US with “assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors”. &nbsp;

This was the beginning of a mandatory 60-day period, which is required to be given before a final decision was taken whether to retain the country in the list of beneficiaries. &nbsp;

Finally, on May 31, Trump announced his decision to remove India as a beneficiary country under the US GSP programme, effective from June 5.

The decision of the US president was based on an eligibility review conducted by the USTR in April 2018. This review was conducted on “concerns” related to India’s compliance with the GSP market access criterion, but more importantly, on two petitions related to the same criterion. &nbsp;

The petitions were filed by the US dairy industry and the US medical device industry (Advanced Medical Technology Association) requesting the USTR to withdraw India as a beneficiary country, given Indian trade barriers affecting US exports in those sectors. &nbsp;

The latter petition was regarding the price controls that the government of India had introduced for coronary stents and knee implants aimed at making such devices affordable in the country.

These expressed reasons for removing India from the list of GSP beneficiaries hardly sound convincing. It is clearly part of a strategy adopted by the Trump administration to target the Indian market. &nbsp;

Trump has frequently spoken of the “disadvantage” the US faces due to India being a “very high-tariff nation”. There should be no doubt that there will be further measures taken against India, including implementing “a measure in the form of a safeguard to address increased imports of articles that are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry producing competitive products”; this was mentioned by Trump in his May 31 proclamation.

What are the implications of India’s removal from the list of US GSP beneficiary countries? According to research conducted for the US Congress, in 2018, India was the largest beneficiary developing country, accounting for over 25 per cent of US imports under GSP. &nbsp;

India’s exports of GSP beneficiary products were $15 billion during April-February 2018-19, which was just less than a third of the total exports to the US. &nbsp;

Six sectors – gems and jewellery, electrical and non-electrical machinery, chemicals, auto components and iron and steel products were the main beneficiaries – with each sector exporting more than a billion dollars. These products would now have to pay tariffs to enter the US market.

It may be mentioned that the tariffs on these products is below 3 per cent for nearly a fourth of the total, which are usually called “nuisance tariffs” because they effectively provide no protection to the domestic industry. &nbsp;

But, these tariffs could cause considerable “nuisance” to the exporters in the form of procedural formalities that would have to be thoroughly reviewed. This would increase the cost of the transaction with regard to exporting to the US. &nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-decoding-the-gsp-puzzle-2759399">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).

The United States (US), on June 5, withdrew duty-free market access to over 3,600 products that it was providing to India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP was put in place in 1971, under which 13 developed countries provide duty-free access to designated products for beneficiary developing countries. While most developed countries introduced the GSP in 1971, the US accepted this system of preferences in 1976, after the Trade Act of 1974 authorised the US president “to extend duty-free treatment to certain eligible products imported into the United States from beneficiary developing countries”. The US extended GSP benefits to 104 countries before it removed India from the list of “beneficiary developing countries”. The Trade Act of 1974 also outlined a set of conditions for determining whether any country should be designated as a beneficiary developing country. These are: (i) a request by the country to be so designated, (ii) the level of economic development of such a country, (iii) whether or not the other major developed countries extend their GSP scheme to the country, and (iv) the extent to which the country has assured the US of equitable and reasonable access to its market and basic commodity resources. These conditions gave the US trade administration discretionary powers. Alongside, the Act also introduced a mechanism that was to be used to review if specific products originating in the beneficiary developing countries could continue to enjoy the GSP benefits. One of the key mechanisms is Competitive Need Limitations (CNL). This states that a beneficiary developing country could lose its GSP eligibility with respect to any product if the CNLs are exceeded. There are two measures for CNLs: (i) when, during any calendar year, import of a particular product into the US from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the value of total imports of that product into the US, or (ii) exceeds a certain dollar value. As per the GSP rules, the dollar-value limit is increased by $5 million annually. The limit set in 2017 was $180 million. There were indications since last year that the Trump Administration was taking steps towards eventually denying India the benefits under GSP. The US president, on October 30, 2018, announced the decision to exclude 94 products from the list of GSP-eligible products, for 16 countries beginning November 1, 2018. There were 50 products in the exclusion list in which India was the principal beneficiary. The targeted list of products for India was the largest among the 16 countries, whose products lost the GSP beneficiary status. In March 2019, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced the Trump administration’s intent to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country under its GSP programme since it was not complying with the “statutory eligibility criteria”. India was targeted, according to the USTR, for its failure to provide the US with “assurances that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to its markets in numerous sectors”. This was the beginning of a mandatory 60-day period, which is required to be given before a final decision was taken whether to retain the country in the list of beneficiaries. Finally, on May 31, Trump announced his decision to remove India as a beneficiary country under the US GSP programme, effective from June 5. The decision of the US president was based on an eligibility review conducted by the USTR in April 2018. This review was conducted on “concerns” related to India’s compliance with the GSP market access criterion, but more importantly, on two petitions related to the same criterion. The petitions were filed by the US dairy industry and the US medical device industry (Advanced Medical Technology Association) requesting the USTR to withdraw India as a beneficiary country, given Indian trade barriers affecting US exports in those sectors. The latter petition was regarding the price controls that the government of India had introduced for coronary stents and knee implants aimed at making such devices affordable in the country. These expressed reasons for removing India from the list of GSP beneficiaries hardly sound convincing. It is clearly part of a strategy adopted by the Trump administration to target the Indian market. Trump has frequently spoken of the “disadvantage” the US faces due to India being a “very high-tariff nation”. There should be no doubt that there will be further measures taken against India, including implementing “a measure in the form of a safeguard to address increased imports of articles that are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry producing competitive products”; this was mentioned by Trump in his May 31 proclamation. What are the implications of India’s removal from the list of US GSP beneficiary countries? According to research conducted for the US Congress, in 2018, India was the largest beneficiary developing country, accounting for over 25 per cent of US imports under GSP. India’s exports of GSP beneficiary products were $15 billion during April-February 2018-19, which was just less than a third of the total exports to the US. Six sectors – gems and jewellery, electrical and non-electrical machinery, chemicals, auto components and iron and steel products were the main beneficiaries – with each sector exporting more than a billion dollars. These products would now have to pay tariffs to enter the US market. It may be mentioned that the tariffs on these products is below 3 per cent for nearly a fourth of the total, which are usually called “nuisance tariffs” because they effectively provide no protection to the domestic industry. But, these tariffs could cause considerable “nuisance” to the exporters in the form of procedural formalities that would have to be thoroughly reviewed. This would increase the cost of the transaction with regard to exporting to the US. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Decoding the GSP puzzle

US President Donald Trump on Monday lashed out at France for unfair tariffs on "great" American wine

Trump could target French wine with tariffs

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 10th, 2019

The Chinese government convened top tech companies this week and warned them of consequences if they cut off technology sales to the country, US media reported on Saturday.

The meeting followed US President Donald Trump's move last month to blacklist Chinese tech giant Huawei over national security concerns, threatening the firm's global ambitions and ramping up the months-long trade battle between the two countries.

Earlier this week, the Chinese government summoned executives from American firms Dell and Microsoft and South Korea's Samsung, among others, to warn them that any moves to ramp down their businesses in China may lead to retaliation, The New York Times reported.

American companies were told "that the Trump administration's move to cut off Chinese companies from American technology had disrupted the global supply chain, adding that companies that followed the policy could face permanent consequences," the newspaper reported.&nbsp;

Companies based outside the United States were told that as long as they maintained business as usual, they wouldn't be punished, the newspaper reported.

Last Friday, Facebook announced it would cut Huwaei off from its popular social networking app to comply with the US sanctions, further isolating the company that has become the world's second-largest smartphone vendor.

Google made a similar announcement in May.

Washington and Beijing resumed their trade battle last month when negotiations in the US ended without a deal and US President Donald Trump raised tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods.

Beijing retaliated with its own tariff hike on billions of dollars worth of US goods.&nbsp;

The US move to cut Huawei off from American hardware came next, but was delayed by 90 days to prevent economic disruptions.

The Chinese government convened top tech companies this week and warned them of consequences if they cut off technology sales to the country, US media reported on Saturday.

The Chinese government convened top tech companies this week and warned them of consequences if they cut off technology sales to the country, US media reported on Saturday. The meeting followed US President Donald Trump's move last month to blacklist Chinese tech giant Huawei over national security concerns, threatening the firm's global ambitions and ramping up the months-long trade battle between the two countries. Earlier this week, the Chinese government summoned executives from American firms Dell and Microsoft and South Korea's Samsung, among others, to warn them that any moves to ramp down their businesses in China may lead to retaliation, The New York Times reported. American companies were told "that the Trump administration's move to cut off Chinese companies from American technology had disrupted the global supply chain, adding that companies that followed the policy could face permanent consequences," the newspaper reported. Companies based outside the United States were told that as long as they maintained business as usual, they wouldn't be punished, the newspaper reported. Last Friday, Facebook announced it would cut Huwaei off from its popular social networking app to comply with the US sanctions, further isolating the company that has become the world's second-largest smartphone vendor. Google made a similar announcement in May. Washington and Beijing resumed their trade battle last month when negotiations in the US ended without a deal and US President Donald Trump raised tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods. Beijing retaliated with its own tariff hike on billions of dollars worth of US goods. The US move to cut Huawei off from American hardware came next, but was delayed by 90 days to prevent economic disruptions.

China warns tech giants after US Huawei ban: Report

Sharpening its attack, Iran on Saturday slammed the United States for its decision to impose fresh <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-hits-iran-petrochemical-group-pgpic-with-sanctions-225322">sanctions on the country`s largest petrochemical group</a>, calling it a violation of "principles of international law."

"Only week-long patience proved the US president`s void assertion that he was willing to hold talks with Iran," Anadolu News Agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abbas Mousavi citing state-run IRNA.

"These measures are in contrast with principles of international law and the international commitments of the US administration," he said.

On Friday, the US slapped sanctions on Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (PGPIC) for allegedly indirectly supporting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as part of Washington`s "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran.

"By targeting this network we intend to deny funding to key elements of Iran`s petrochemical sector that provide support to the IRGC. This action is a warning that we will continue to target holding groups and companies in the petrochemical sector and elsewhere that provide financial lifelines to the IRGC," Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin had said in a statement.

Responding to the US` move, Mousavi urged the countries to protest against Washington`s "violation of principles of international law and not to let destroy the achievements of the international community and the principle of multilateralism be ignored due to US` bullying and unilateral acts".

Ties between the US and Iran soured after Washington pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last year.

Following this, the US slapped a multitude of sanctions on Iran, citing the latter`s support to state-sponsored terrorism and conflicts.

The historic 2015 deal between Iran and world powers including the European Union and the US, offered sanctions relief to Iran for scaling back its nuclear programme.

The US has remained rooted to its stand, saying it would continue to "impose maximum pressure" against Iran till the regime gives up its "destabilising ambitions" of expanding its nuclear programme.

Washington also recently announced that no fresh sanction waivers will be issued for Iranian oil imports to eight countries, including India.

Sharpening its attack, Iran on Saturday slammed the United States for its decision to impose fresh sanctions on the country`s largest petrochemical group, calling it a violation of "principles of international law.

Sharpening its attack, Iran on Saturday slammed the United States for its decision to impose fresh sanctions on the country`s largest petrochemical group, calling it a violation of "principles of international law." "Only week-long patience proved the US president`s void assertion that he was willing to hold talks with Iran," Anadolu News Agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesperson Abbas Mousavi citing state-run IRNA. "These measures are in contrast with principles of international law and the international commitments of the US administration," he said. On Friday, the US slapped sanctions on Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (PGPIC) for allegedly indirectly supporting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as part of Washington`s "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran. "By targeting this network we intend to deny funding to key elements of Iran`s petrochemical sector that provide support to the IRGC. This action is a warning that we will continue to target holding groups and companies in the petrochemical sector and elsewhere that provide financial lifelines to the IRGC," Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin had said in a statement. Responding to the US` move, Mousavi urged the countries to protest against Washington`s "violation of principles of international law and not to let destroy the achievements of the international community and the principle of multilateralism be ignored due to US` bullying and unilateral acts". Ties between the US and Iran soured after Washington pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last year. Following this, the US slapped a multitude of sanctions on Iran, citing the latter`s support to state-sponsored terrorism and conflicts. The historic 2015 deal between Iran and world powers including the European Union and the US, offered sanctions relief to Iran for scaling back its nuclear programme. The US has remained rooted to its stand, saying it would continue to "impose maximum pressure" against Iran till the regime gives up its "destabilising ambitions" of expanding its nuclear programme. Washington also recently announced that no fresh sanction waivers will be issued for Iranian oil imports to eight countries, including India.

Iran denounces latest US sanctions targetting petrochemical sector

Palestinian leaders say a US envoy's comments on<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-envoy-in-interview-does-not-rule-out-israeli-annexation-in-west-bank-225577"> Israel having the right to annex</a> at least parts of the occupied West Bank show "extremists" are involved in White House policy on the issue.

In a statement late Saturday in response to US ambassador to Israel David Friedman's comments in a New York Times interview, a Palestinian government spokesman said some leading US policy on the issue were "extremists" lacking in "political maturity."

The Palestinian foreign ministry said it was looking into filing a complaint with the International Criminal Court on the issue.

Palestine Liberation Organisation secretary general Saeb Erekat on Twitter called Friedman an "extreme ambassador of the settlers."

"Their vision is about the annexation of occupied territory, a war crime under international law," he said.

Erekat also renewed a Palestinian call for countries to boycott a June 25-26 conference in Bahrain to discuss economic aspects of a peace deal the White House has been working on.

In the interview published Saturday, Friedman said some degree of the annexation of the West Bank would be legitimate.

"Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank," he said.

Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War and its construction of settlements there is viewed as a major stumbling block to peace as they are built on land the Palestinians see as part of their future state.

Friedman has in the past been a supporter of Israeli settlements as has the family of Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser leading efforts to put together the peace deal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged ahead of April elections to begin annexing West Bank settlements.

Bringing settlements under Israeli sovereignty on a large-scale could end any remaining hopes for a two-state solution to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians.

More than 600,000 Jewish settlers now live in the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem among some three million Palestinians.

On the long-delayed peace plan, Friedman said it was aimed at improving the quality of life for Palestinians but would fall well short of a "permanent resolution to the conflict".

Publication of the plan looks set to be further delayed after the Israeli parliament called a snap general election for September, the second this year.

The plan is regarded as too sensitive to release during the campaign.

The Palestinian leadership has already rejected the plan, saying Trump's moves so far show him to be blatantly biased in favour of Israel.

Those moves include recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

Palestinian leaders say a US envoy's comments on Israel having the right to annex at least parts of the occupied West Bank show "extremists" are involved in White House policy on the issue.

Palestinian leaders say a US envoy's comments on Israel having the right to annex at least parts of the occupied West Bank show "extremists" are involved in White House policy on the issue. In a statement late Saturday in response to US ambassador to Israel David Friedman's comments in a New York Times interview, a Palestinian government spokesman said some leading US policy on the issue were "extremists" lacking in "political maturity." The Palestinian foreign ministry said it was looking into filing a complaint with the International Criminal Court on the issue. Palestine Liberation Organisation secretary general Saeb Erekat on Twitter called Friedman an "extreme ambassador of the settlers." "Their vision is about the annexation of occupied territory, a war crime under international law," he said. Erekat also renewed a Palestinian call for countries to boycott a June 25-26 conference in Bahrain to discuss economic aspects of a peace deal the White House has been working on. In the interview published Saturday, Friedman said some degree of the annexation of the West Bank would be legitimate. "Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank," he said. Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War and its construction of settlements there is viewed as a major stumbling block to peace as they are built on land the Palestinians see as part of their future state. Friedman has in the past been a supporter of Israeli settlements as has the family of Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser leading efforts to put together the peace deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged ahead of April elections to begin annexing West Bank settlements. Bringing settlements under Israeli sovereignty on a large-scale could end any remaining hopes for a two-state solution to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. More than 600,000 Jewish settlers now live in the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem among some three million Palestinians. On the long-delayed peace plan, Friedman said it was aimed at improving the quality of life for Palestinians but would fall well short of a "permanent resolution to the conflict". Publication of the plan looks set to be further delayed after the Israeli parliament called a snap general election for September, the second this year. The plan is regarded as too sensitive to release during the campaign. The Palestinian leadership has already rejected the plan, saying Trump's moves so far show him to be blatantly biased in favour of Israel. Those moves include recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid to the Palestinians.

US envoy's annexation comments show 'extremist' approach: Palestinian leaders

Understanding US-Mexico immigration deal and what drives Central American families to migrate

Mexico will take "unprecedented steps" to stem the flow of Central American migrants transiting the country to the United States, including by deploying National Guard troops, the countries said in a joint statement Friday.

The announcement came as the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-reaches-deal-with-us-on-migration-averting-tariff-war-trump-225346">US and Mexico hammered out a deal on migration</a> to avoid punishing tariffs on all Mexican imports that US President Donald Trump had threatened to put into effect on Monday.

"Mexico will take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration, to include the deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border," the statement said.

Mexico would also target human smuggling and trafficking groups, the statement said.

Watch: Donald Trump calls off tariffs as US and Mexico reach deal on immigration

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-calls-off-tariffs-as-us-and-mexico-reach-deal-on-immigration-225356/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Meanwhile, measures on the US side will include sending migrants who had applied for asylum back to Mexico to wait while their claims were being processed.

&nbsp;

Mexico will take "unprecedented steps" to stem the flow of Central American migrants transiting the country to the United States, including by deploying National Guard troops, the countries said in a joint statement Friday.

Mexico will take "unprecedented steps" to stem the flow of Central American migrants transiting the country to the United States, including by deploying National Guard troops, the countries said in a joint statement Friday. The announcement came as the US and Mexico hammered out a deal on migration to avoid punishing tariffs on all Mexican imports that US President Donald Trump had threatened to put into effect on Monday. "Mexico will take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration, to include the deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border," the statement said. Mexico would also target human smuggling and trafficking groups, the statement said. Watch: Donald Trump calls off tariffs as US and Mexico reach deal on immigration × Meanwhile, measures on the US side will include sending migrants who had applied for asylum back to Mexico to wait while their claims were being processed.

Mexico promises 'unprecedented steps' to curb migration in US deal: Joint statement

The United States on Friday raised the stakes in its standoff with Turkey over Ankara's deal to acquire a Russian air defence system, laying out a plan to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-may-suspend-training-of-turkish-pilots-for-f-35-jets-over-russia-missile-deal-222455">remove the NATO ally from the F-35 fighter jet program</a> that includes immediately halting any new training for Turkish pilots on the advanced aircraft.

Acting US&nbsp;Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan sent a letter to his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/turkey-says-to-produce-s-500s-with-russia-after-s-400-missile-deal-219729">Turkish </a>counterpart, seen by Reuters on Friday, that outlined how Turkey would be pulled out the program -- unless Ankara changes course.

Reuters on Thursday first reported the decision to stop accepting more Turkish pilots for training in the United States, in one of the most concrete signs that the dispute between Washington and Ankara is reaching a breaking point.

The United States says Turkey's acquisition of Russia's S-400 air defence system poses a threat to the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 stealthy fighters, which Turkey also plans to buy. The United States says Turkey cannot have both.

Shanahan's letter explicitly states there will be "no new F-35 training." It says there were 34 students scheduled for F-35 training later this year.

"This training will not occur because we are suspending Turkey from the F-35 program; there are no longer requirements to gain proficiencies on the systems," according to an attachment to the letter that is titled, "Unwinding Turkey's Participation in the F-35 Program."

Turkish personnel already in the United States will see their training on the F-35 discontinued at the end of July.

In his letter, Shanahan also warned Ankara that its deal with Moscow risked undermining its ties to NATO, hurting the Turkish economy and creating over-dependence on Russia.

"You still have the option to change course on the S-400," Shanahan wrote.

The Turkish lira declined as much as 1.5 per cent&nbsp;on Friday before recovering some losses. The currency has shed nearly 10 per cent&nbsp;of its value against the dollar this year in part on fraying diplomatic ties and the risk of US&nbsp;sanctions if Turkey accepts delivery of the S-400s.

Graceful exit?

Turkey is one of the core partners in the F-35 program and expressed an interest in buying 100 of the fighters, which would have a total value of $9 billion at current prices.

Turkish companies produce some 937 parts of the F-35, largely for the aircraft's landing gear and centre fuselage, the Pentagon says. The United States is now planning to move that production elsewhere, ending Turkey's manufacturing role by early next year.

The Pentagon believes that it can minimise the impact on the broader program if Turkey abides by the US timeline.

"What we are doing is working to do a very disciplined and graceful wind down," Ellen Lord, an undersecretary of defence, told reporters at the Pentagon.

She noted that nothing done to date was "irreversible."

But if Turkey were removed from the F-35 program, the ramifications would be felt far beyond the Turkish air force. It would be one of the most significant ruptures in recent history in the relationship with the United States, experts said.

Strains in ties between the United States and Ankara already extend beyond the F-35 to include conflicting strategy in Syria, Iran sanctions and the detention of US consular staff in Turkey.

Still, Turkey seems to be moving ahead with the S-400 purchase, regardless of the US warnings. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday it was "out of the question" for Turkey to back away from its deal with Moscow.

Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on May 22 that Turkish military personnel were receiving training in Russia to use the S-400, and that Russian personnel may go to Turkey.

The head of Russian state conglomerate Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, was quoted as saying on Friday that the country would start delivering S-400 missile systems to Turkey in two months.

Erdogan said the United States had not "given us an offer as good as the S-400s."

Still, Lord held out hope for Turkey, noting that none of the US decisions so far were irreversible.

"We're hopeful that they will stop the acquisition of the S-400. We would very much like them to stay in the (F-35) program," Lord said.

The United States on Friday raised the stakes in its standoff with Turkey over Ankara's deal to acquire a Russian air defence system, laying out a plan to remove the NATO ally from the F-35 fighter jet program that includes immediately halting any new training for Turkish pilots on the advanced aircraft.

The United States on Friday raised the stakes in its standoff with Turkey over Ankara's deal to acquire a Russian air defence system, laying out a plan to remove the NATO ally from the F-35 fighter jet program that includes immediately halting any new training for Turkish pilots on the advanced aircraft. Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan sent a letter to his Turkish counterpart, seen by Reuters on Friday, that outlined how Turkey would be pulled out the program -- unless Ankara changes course. Reuters on Thursday first reported the decision to stop accepting more Turkish pilots for training in the United States, in one of the most concrete signs that the dispute between Washington and Ankara is reaching a breaking point. The United States says Turkey's acquisition of Russia's S-400 air defence system poses a threat to the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 stealthy fighters, which Turkey also plans to buy. The United States says Turkey cannot have both. Shanahan's letter explicitly states there will be "no new F-35 training." It says there were 34 students scheduled for F-35 training later this year. "This training will not occur because we are suspending Turkey from the F-35 program; there are no longer requirements to gain proficiencies on the systems," according to an attachment to the letter that is titled, "Unwinding Turkey's Participation in the F-35 Program." Turkish personnel already in the United States will see their training on the F-35 discontinued at the end of July. In his letter, Shanahan also warned Ankara that its deal with Moscow risked undermining its ties to NATO, hurting the Turkish economy and creating over-dependence on Russia. "You still have the option to change course on the S-400," Shanahan wrote. The Turkish lira declined as much as 1.5 per cent on Friday before recovering some losses. The currency has shed nearly 10 per cent of its value against the dollar this year in part on fraying diplomatic ties and the risk of US sanctions if Turkey accepts delivery of the S-400s. Graceful exit? Turkey is one of the core partners in the F-35 program and expressed an interest in buying 100 of the fighters, which would have a total value of $9 billion at current prices. Turkish companies produce some 937 parts of the F-35, largely for the aircraft's landing gear and centre fuselage, the Pentagon says. The United States is now planning to move that production elsewhere, ending Turkey's manufacturing role by early next year. The Pentagon believes that it can minimise the impact on the broader program if Turkey abides by the US timeline. "What we are doing is working to do a very disciplined and graceful wind down," Ellen Lord, an undersecretary of defence, told reporters at the Pentagon. She noted that nothing done to date was "irreversible." But if Turkey were removed from the F-35 program, the ramifications would be felt far beyond the Turkish air force. It would be one of the most significant ruptures in recent history in the relationship with the United States, experts said. Strains in ties between the United States and Ankara already extend beyond the F-35 to include conflicting strategy in Syria, Iran sanctions and the detention of US consular staff in Turkey. Still, Turkey seems to be moving ahead with the S-400 purchase, regardless of the US warnings. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday it was "out of the question" for Turkey to back away from its deal with Moscow. Defence Minister Hulusi Akar said on May 22 that Turkish military personnel were receiving training in Russia to use the S-400, and that Russian personnel may go to Turkey. The head of Russian state conglomerate Rostec, Sergei Chemezov, was quoted as saying on Friday that the country would start delivering S-400 missile systems to Turkey in two months. Erdogan said the United States had not "given us an offer as good as the S-400s." Still, Lord held out hope for Turkey, noting that none of the US decisions so far were irreversible. "We're hopeful that they will stop the acquisition of the S-400. We would very much like them to stay in the (F-35) program," Lord said.

US starts 'unwinding' Turkey from F-35 program over Russia defence deal

US&nbsp;Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Saturday he would discuss trade issues with People's Bank of China Governor Yi Gang, but the main progress in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-us-tensions-very-negative-influence-on-global-economy-australia-pm-scott-morrison-225234">US-China trade dispute</a> would take place later this month at a meeting between <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-criticises-nasa-moon-mission-after-promoting-it-earlier-225364">President Donald Trump</a> and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Mnuchin told reporters on the sidelines of the G20 finance leaders meeting in Japan that the Trump-Xi meeting was the "next important meeting" in the trade dispute.

The Treasury chief likened the meeting, unconfirmed by China, to a Trump-Xi meeting last December in Buenos Aires, which paved the way for five months of negotiations to try to resolve the issue.

Watch: US-China Trade War - Advantage For India?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-china-trade-war-advantage-for-india-223999/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Mnuchin said he did not have specific goals for his discussions on Sunday with Yi, a key member of China's trade negotiating team. He said the two finance leaders would discuss economic and finance issues as part of their normal G20 interactions and also discuss trade issues, but no announcement was expected.

"This is not a negotiating meeting," Mnuchin said.

Mnuchin said the United States and China were about 90 percent of the way toward reaching "an historic agreement" before China backtracked on certain commitments. He said that if China wants to resume the negotiations on the basis of the texts prior to an early May breakdown of talks, the US&nbsp;side is ready to engage.

"If we can get the right agreement, that's great. If we can't get the right agreement, we will proceed with tariffs," Mnuchin said.

The Trump administration is taking steps to impose 25% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports so far untouched by the trade war between the world's two largest economies. These tariffs could be ready for activation around the end of June, when the Osaka G20 summit take place.

Mnuchin said that the United States wants free, fair and balanced trade with China, in part to close a gaping US&nbsp;trade deficit with China.

"If we can't have that, the end result will be that my expectation is that many companies will move their production out of China to other locations," due to tariffs, Mnuchin said.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Saturday he would discuss trade issues with People's Bank of China Governor Yi Gang, but the main progress in the US-China trade dispute would take place later this month at a meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Saturday he would discuss trade issues with People's Bank of China Governor Yi Gang, but the main progress in the US-China trade dispute would take place later this month at a meeting between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Mnuchin told reporters on the sidelines of the G20 finance leaders meeting in Japan that the Trump-Xi meeting was the "next important meeting" in the trade dispute. The Treasury chief likened the meeting, unconfirmed by China, to a Trump-Xi meeting last December in Buenos Aires, which paved the way for five months of negotiations to try to resolve the issue. Watch: US-China Trade War - Advantage For India? Mnuchin said he did not have specific goals for his discussions on Sunday with Yi, a key member of China's trade negotiating team. He said the two finance leaders would discuss economic and finance issues as part of their normal G20 interactions and also discuss trade issues, but no announcement was expected. "This is not a negotiating meeting," Mnuchin said. Mnuchin said the United States and China were about 90 percent of the way toward reaching "an historic agreement" before China backtracked on certain commitments. He said that if China wants to resume the negotiations on the basis of the texts prior to an early May breakdown of talks, the US side is ready to engage. "If we can get the right agreement, that's great. If we can't get the right agreement, we will proceed with tariffs," Mnuchin said. The Trump administration is taking steps to impose 25% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports so far untouched by the trade war between the world's two largest economies. These tariffs could be ready for activation around the end of June, when the Osaka G20 summit take place. Mnuchin said that the United States wants free, fair and balanced trade with China, in part to close a gaping US trade deficit with China. "If we can't have that, the end result will be that my expectation is that many companies will move their production out of China to other locations," due to tariffs, Mnuchin said.

Main progress on US-China trade to be at Trump-Xi summit: US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin

US job growth slowed sharply in May and wages rose less than expected, raising fears that a loss of momentum in economic activity could be spreading to the labour market, which could put pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates this year.

The broad cool-off in hiring reported by the Labour Department on Friday was before a recent escalation in trade tensions between the United States and two of its major trading partners, China and Mexico. Analysts have warned the trade fights could undermine the economy, which will celebrate 10 years of expansion next month, the longest on record.

Adding a sting to the closely watched employment report, far fewer jobs were created in March and April than previously reported, indicating that hiring had shifted into a lower gear. The labour market thus far has been largely resilient to the trade war with China.

"Today's report makes a cut more likely, and supports our view that the trade tensions will ultimately slow growth enough for the Fed to respond in September and December with cuts," said Joseph Song, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by 75,000 jobs last month, the government said. It was the second time this year that job gains dropped below 100,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls rising by 185,000 jobs last month. Job growth in March and April was revised down by 75,000.

President Donald Trump in early May slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, which prompted retaliation by Beijing. Last week, Trump said he would impose a tariff on all goods from Mexico to force authorities in that country to stop immigrants from Central America from crossing the border into the United States.

Talks to prevent the duties from kicking in at 5% on June 10 continue. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said on Tuesday the U.S. central bank was closely monitoring the implications of the trade tensions on the economy and would "act as appropriate to sustain the expansion."

Trump, who has routinely tweeted about the strong labour market, made no comment about May's weak hiring, but defended duties on Chinese goods. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told Fox Business Network that bad weather in the Midwest was to blame and described the meagre job gains as "a little bit of a blip down."

Economists, however, said there was nothing to suggest the weather was the culprit.

"The weakness in job growth was broadly experienced across industry groups and not obviously driven by distortions such as weather or strikes," said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan in New York.

U.S. House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said the employment report was "a disturbing sign that the administration's disastrous special interest agenda is hollowing out our economy."

Following the report financial markets priced in a rate cut as early as July and two more later this year. Economists, however, believe the Fed will probably wait for more signs of labour market weakness and clarity on the trade issues before easing monetary policy. Fed officials are due to meet on June 18-19.

"Fed officials are likely to remain cautious at the June meeting and keep all their options open," said Michael Hanson, head of global macro strategy at TD Securities in New York.

The dollar fell to a 2-1/2-month low against a basket of currencies, while U.S. Treasury prices rose. Stocks on Wall Street were trading higher.

WORKER SHORTAGES

Last month's slowdown in job gains, however, probably understates the labour market's health as layoffs remain low.

Employment gains over the last three months have averaged 151,000, above the roughly 100,000 needed per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population. In the four months since the first hiccup in hiring appeared in February, however, monthly payrolls gains have averaged just 127,000, the slowest pace over a comparable stretch in nearly seven years.

Some of the weakness in hiring could be because of worker shortages, especially in the construction, transportation and manufacturing sectors. But the worker shortage argument is somewhat undercut by moderate wage growth.

Average hourly earnings grew just 3.1% year-over-year, the slowest annual increase since September. Just three months earlier, wages had been rising at their fastest rate in a decade but gains have moderated since.

The tepid employment report added to soft data on consumer spending, business investment, manufacturing and homes sales in suggesting the economy was losing momentum in the second quarter following a temporary boost from exports, inventory accumulation and defence spending. Growth is cooling as the massive stimulus from last year's tax cuts and spending increases fades.

The Atlanta Fed is forecasting gross domestic product rising at a 1.4% annualised rate in the second quarter. The economy grew at a 3.1% pace in the first quarter.

The unemployment rate remained near a 50-year low of 3.6% in May. A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, dropped to 7.1% last month, the lowest since December 2000.

Hiring slowed across all sectors in May, with the share of industries showing job gains during the month the smallest since July 2016.

Manufacturing payrolls increased by 3,000 last month, after gaining 5,000 positions in April. The sector is struggling with an inventory overhang that has resulted in businesses placing fewer orders at factories.

Employers in the construction sector hired 4,000 workers in May after adding 30,000 jobs to payrolls in April. Professional and business services employment rose by 33,000. Transportation and warehousing payrolls fell as did retail employment. Government shed 15,000 jobs, the most in 16 months.

US job growth slowed sharply in May and wages rose less than expected, raising fears that a loss of momentum in economic activity could be spreading to the labour market, which could put pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates this year.

US job growth slowed sharply in May and wages rose less than expected, raising fears that a loss of momentum in economic activity could be spreading to the labour market, which could put pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates this year. The broad cool-off in hiring reported by the Labour Department on Friday was before a recent escalation in trade tensions between the United States and two of its major trading partners, China and Mexico. Analysts have warned the trade fights could undermine the economy, which will celebrate 10 years of expansion next month, the longest on record. Adding a sting to the closely watched employment report, far fewer jobs were created in March and April than previously reported, indicating that hiring had shifted into a lower gear. The labour market thus far has been largely resilient to the trade war with China. "Today's report makes a cut more likely, and supports our view that the trade tensions will ultimately slow growth enough for the Fed to respond in September and December with cuts," said Joseph Song, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch in New York. Nonfarm payrolls increased by 75,000 jobs last month, the government said. It was the second time this year that job gains dropped below 100,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast payrolls rising by 185,000 jobs last month. Job growth in March and April was revised down by 75,000. President Donald Trump in early May slapped additional tariffs of up to 25% on $200 billion of Chinese goods, which prompted retaliation by Beijing. Last week, Trump said he would impose a tariff on all goods from Mexico to force authorities in that country to stop immigrants from Central America from crossing the border into the United States. Talks to prevent the duties from kicking in at 5% on June 10 continue. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said on Tuesday the U.S. central bank was closely monitoring the implications of the trade tensions on the economy and would "act as appropriate to sustain the expansion." Trump, who has routinely tweeted about the strong labour market, made no comment about May's weak hiring, but defended duties on Chinese goods. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett told Fox Business Network that bad weather in the Midwest was to blame and described the meagre job gains as "a little bit of a blip down." Economists, however, said there was nothing to suggest the weather was the culprit. "The weakness in job growth was broadly experienced across industry groups and not obviously driven by distortions such as weather or strikes," said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan in New York. U.S. House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said the employment report was "a disturbing sign that the administration's disastrous special interest agenda is hollowing out our economy." Following the report financial markets priced in a rate cut as early as July and two more later this year. Economists, however, believe the Fed will probably wait for more signs of labour market weakness and clarity on the trade issues before easing monetary policy. Fed officials are due to meet on June 18-19. "Fed officials are likely to remain cautious at the June meeting and keep all their options open," said Michael Hanson, head of global macro strategy at TD Securities in New York. The dollar fell to a 2-1/2-month low against a basket of currencies, while U.S. Treasury prices rose. Stocks on Wall Street were trading higher. WORKER SHORTAGES Last month's slowdown in job gains, however, probably understates the labour market's health as layoffs remain low. Employment gains over the last three months have averaged 151,000, above the roughly 100,000 needed per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population. In the four months since the first hiccup in hiring appeared in February, however, monthly payrolls gains have averaged just 127,000, the slowest pace over a comparable stretch in nearly seven years. Some of the weakness in hiring could be because of worker shortages, especially in the construction, transportation and manufacturing sectors. But the worker shortage argument is somewhat undercut by moderate wage growth. Average hourly earnings grew just 3.1% year-over-year, the slowest annual increase since September. Just three months earlier, wages had been rising at their fastest rate in a decade but gains have moderated since. The tepid employment report added to soft data on consumer spending, business investment, manufacturing and homes sales in suggesting the economy was losing momentum in the second quarter following a temporary boost from exports, inventory accumulation and defence spending. Growth is cooling as the massive stimulus from last year's tax cuts and spending increases fades. The Atlanta Fed is forecasting gross domestic product rising at a 1.4% annualised rate in the second quarter. The economy grew at a 3.1% pace in the first quarter. The unemployment rate remained near a 50-year low of 3.6% in May. A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, dropped to 7.1% last month, the lowest since December 2000. Hiring slowed across all sectors in May, with the share of industries showing job gains during the month the smallest since July 2016. Manufacturing payrolls increased by 3,000 last month, after gaining 5,000 positions in April. The sector is struggling with an inventory overhang that has resulted in businesses placing fewer orders at factories. Employers in the construction sector hired 4,000 workers in May after adding 30,000 jobs to payrolls in April. Professional and business services employment rose by 33,000. Transportation and warehousing payrolls fell as did retail employment. Government shed 15,000 jobs, the most in 16 months.

Weak US employment report raises red flag on economy

In a development that may raise eyebrows in Washington and New Delhi, Deputy National Security Advisors of 5 countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China will be meeting in Kabul on June 10. The meet is devised to tackle regional challenges and development in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

India and the US are not part of the meeting, even though they are key stakeholders when it comes to the development in landlocked South Asian countries.&nbsp;

These are the number of processes currently underway to help stabilise Afghanistan including a Moscow-backed process which the US hasn't been keen to join.&nbsp;

New Delhi has been Afghanistan's biggest supporter in the region. India, through its community development scheme since 2005, has supported over 550 projects throughout Afghanistan. Of these, around 345 projects have been completed while the remaining are in various stages of completion.&nbsp;

The projects are aimed at building basic infrastructure such as schools, public health centres, bridges, roads for local communities. India is the largest donor to Afghanistan in the region and, since 2001 after the fall of the Taliban, has undertaken projects and programmes worth over $2 billion. 
&nbsp;

In a development that may raise eyebrows in Washington and New Delhi, Deputy National Security Advisors of 5 countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China will be meeting in Kabul on June 10.

In a development that may raise eyebrows in Washington and New Delhi, Deputy National Security Advisors of 5 countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia and China will be meeting in Kabul on June 10. The meet is devised to tackle regional challenges and development in Afghanistan. India and the US are not part of the meeting, even though they are key stakeholders when it comes to the development in landlocked South Asian countries. These are the number of processes currently underway to help stabilise Afghanistan including a Moscow-backed process which the US hasn't been keen to join. New Delhi has been Afghanistan's biggest supporter in the region. India, through its community development scheme since 2005, has supported over 550 projects throughout Afghanistan. Of these, around 345 projects have been completed while the remaining are in various stages of completion. The projects are aimed at building basic infrastructure such as schools, public health centres, bridges, roads for local communities. India is the largest donor to Afghanistan in the region and, since 2001 after the fall of the Taliban, has undertaken projects and programmes worth over $2 billion.

Deputy National Security Advisors of 5 countries to meet in Kabul; India, US not invited

The Joe Biden Express to the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination went a bit off track this week.

Since Biden joined the race in April, his campaign has worked to craft an aura of inevitability around the former vice president’s bid. Biden has engaged President Donald Trump more often than his Democratic rivals, while speaking in broad, thematic outlines rather pinpointing policy.

To a large extent, the strategy has succeeded. Biden enjoys a comfortable lead over his 23 competitors - drawing 31% of support from Democratic and independent voters compared to the 14% received by second-place US Senator Bernie Sanders in the Reuters/Ipsos poll this week - and remains the favourite to battle Trump in the November 2020 election.

But as Biden increasingly has to stake out policy positions, he finds himself under fire from progressives in the party — and has shown a willingness to bow to demands that could hurt him with more moderate voters.

Facing intense criticism from liberals and abortion-rights groups, Biden on Thursday suddenly reversed himself on the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits federal funds for most abortions. After 40 years of supporting the measure, Biden, a Roman Catholic, announced at an event in Atlanta that he now opposed it.

Earlier this week, Biden rolled out a climate-change plan that was more ambitious and far-reaching than many expected. It came after weeks of progressives openly fretting that his plan would seek some sort of “middle ground” in an attempt to mollify labour unions and other industry groups concerned about the economic impact of a massive shift away from fossil fuels.&nbsp;

In both cases, Biden was not necessarily speaking to his loyal base of supporters, the largely middle-aged and middle-of-the-road voters - many of them union members - who came out to see him in New Hampshire this week.

Instead, he was courting the groups he needs to consolidate his grip on the nomination: the activists, progressives and millennials who right now have the louder voices in the party.

Biden’s chief antagonist has been Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the first-term congresswoman from New York who is not running for president but who commands a fervent following on social media. She called out Biden on both his climate and abortion positions.&nbsp;

Shifts draws scrutiny

Biden also is being knocked around more by his fellow Democratic candidates, who finally were given an opening to distinguish themselves from the front-runner on an issue key to the party`s base. His past support of the Hyde Amendment was blasted by Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, among others.&nbsp;

Biden added to the confusion about where he stands on the issue during the event in Atlanta by saying he would make “no apologies for my last position” on the amendment.&nbsp;

While he cited aggressive anti-abortion laws passed in states such as Georgia for his shift, his language fuelled outrage among progressive women on Twitter who argued the law had prevented poor women from obtaining abortions for decades.&nbsp;

Campaign aides for Trump`s reelection told Reuters last month they expected Biden to be pulled leftward as the Democratic primary progressed, and they were prepared to exploit that should it occur.

On the campaign trail, Biden at times appears caught between a lifetime of centrist and often bipartisan policymaking and the pull of the progressive tide.&nbsp;

At an event on Tuesday in Concord, New Hampshire, he continued to defend the 1994 crime bill he helped craft as a senator that has been criticized by Harris and other candidates for resulting in the disproportionate jailing of African-Americans.&nbsp;

“You’ve been conditioned to say it’s a bad bill,” he told a questioner, a young woman who called herself a “civil liberties voter.”&nbsp;

Unlike several other Democratic candidates who have already called for the US House of Representatives to initiate an impeachment inquiry against Trump, Biden has held back, saying that it should only happen if Trump continues to stonewall committee probes.

“It’s a gigantic distraction from things we should be focusing on getting done,” he said.

It remains to be seen whether Biden has suffered any damage from tacking leftward on some issues.

Some voters in New Hampshire made clear they did not want Biden to cater to the party progressives.&nbsp;

“I honestly think the progressives are in many ways hijacking the Democratic Party. The 60 or 70 per cent of us who are in the middle get left out of the mix,” said Jeff Brown, 57, of Weare, New Hampshire. “And I think the vice president hears our voices, and I think he’s the one who is&nbsp;

The Joe Biden Express to the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination went a bit off track this week. Since Biden joined the race in April, his campaign has worked to craft an aura of inevitability around the former vice president’s bid.

The Joe Biden Express to the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination went a bit off track this week. Since Biden joined the race in April, his campaign has worked to craft an aura of inevitability around the former vice president’s bid. Biden has engaged President Donald Trump more often than his Democratic rivals, while speaking in broad, thematic outlines rather pinpointing policy. To a large extent, the strategy has succeeded. Biden enjoys a comfortable lead over his 23 competitors - drawing 31% of support from Democratic and independent voters compared to the 14% received by second-place US Senator Bernie Sanders in the Reuters/Ipsos poll this week - and remains the favourite to battle Trump in the November 2020 election. But as Biden increasingly has to stake out policy positions, he finds himself under fire from progressives in the party — and has shown a willingness to bow to demands that could hurt him with more moderate voters. Facing intense criticism from liberals and abortion-rights groups, Biden on Thursday suddenly reversed himself on the Hyde Amendment, a law that prohibits federal funds for most abortions. After 40 years of supporting the measure, Biden, a Roman Catholic, announced at an event in Atlanta that he now opposed it. Earlier this week, Biden rolled out a climate-change plan that was more ambitious and far-reaching than many expected. It came after weeks of progressives openly fretting that his plan would seek some sort of “middle ground” in an attempt to mollify labour unions and other industry groups concerned about the economic impact of a massive shift away from fossil fuels. In both cases, Biden was not necessarily speaking to his loyal base of supporters, the largely middle-aged and middle-of-the-road voters - many of them union members - who came out to see him in New Hampshire this week. Instead, he was courting the groups he needs to consolidate his grip on the nomination: the activists, progressives and millennials who right now have the louder voices in the party. Biden’s chief antagonist has been Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the first-term congresswoman from New York who is not running for president but who commands a fervent following on social media. She called out Biden on both his climate and abortion positions. Shifts draws scrutiny Biden also is being knocked around more by his fellow Democratic candidates, who finally were given an opening to distinguish themselves from the front-runner on an issue key to the party`s base. His past support of the Hyde Amendment was blasted by Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, among others. Biden added to the confusion about where he stands on the issue during the event in Atlanta by saying he would make “no apologies for my last position” on the amendment. While he cited aggressive anti-abortion laws passed in states such as Georgia for his shift, his language fuelled outrage among progressive women on Twitter who argued the law had prevented poor women from obtaining abortions for decades. Campaign aides for Trump`s reelection told Reuters last month they expected Biden to be pulled leftward as the Democratic primary progressed, and they were prepared to exploit that should it occur. On the campaign trail, Biden at times appears caught between a lifetime of centrist and often bipartisan policymaking and the pull of the progressive tide. At an event on Tuesday in Concord, New Hampshire, he continued to defend the 1994 crime bill he helped craft as a senator that has been criticized by Harris and other candidates for resulting in the disproportionate jailing of African-Americans. “You’ve been conditioned to say it’s a bad bill,” he told a questioner, a young woman who called herself a “civil liberties voter.” Unlike several other Democratic candidates who have already called for the US House of Representatives to initiate an impeachment inquiry against Trump, Biden has held back, saying that it should only happen if Trump continues to stonewall committee probes. “It’s a gigantic distraction from things we should be focusing on getting done,” he said. It remains to be seen whether Biden has suffered any damage from tacking leftward on some issues. Some voters in New Hampshire made clear they did not want Biden to cater to the party progressives. “I honestly think the progressives are in many ways hijacking the Democratic Party. The 60 or 70 per cent of us who are in the middle get left out of the mix,” said Jeff Brown, 57, of Weare, New Hampshire. “And I think the vice president hears our voices, and I think he’s the one who is

Under pressure, Biden drifts leftward on abortion, climate change

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - June 07th, 2019

In talks with the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mulling-over-declaring-new-emergency-for-imposing-tariffs-on-mexico-225116">United States</a>, Mexico has offered to send up to 6,000 members of its national guard to secure its southern border with Guatemala in order <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mexico-eyes-steps-to-cut-immigrant-flows-to-us-border-official-223382">to contain migrant flows</a>, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post.

Mexico has sent a delegation of officials to Washington to try to avert US President Donald Trump`s threats to impose import tariffs on Mexican goods if the country does not do more to halt the flow of migrants to the United States.

During the talks, the United States proposed deporting undocumented Guatemalan migrants to Mexico as part of a deal, but there has been no agreement on this point, according to a Mexican source familiar with the process.&nbsp;

In talks with the United States, Mexico has offered to send up to 6,000 members of its national guard to secure its southern border with Guatemala in order to contain migrant flows, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

In talks with the United States, Mexico has offered to send up to 6,000 members of its national guard to secure its southern border with Guatemala in order to contain migrant flows, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The news was first reported by the Washington Post. Mexico has sent a delegation of officials to Washington to try to avert US President Donald Trump`s threats to impose import tariffs on Mexican goods if the country does not do more to halt the flow of migrants to the United States. During the talks, the United States proposed deporting undocumented Guatemalan migrants to Mexico as part of a deal, but there has been no agreement on this point, according to a Mexican source familiar with the process.

Mexico offers to send national guard to Guatemala to stem migration: Sources

US President Donald Trump has made immigration a central theme of his administration but has grown increasingly frustrated with the ballooning numbers of mostly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mulling-over-declaring-new-emergency-for-imposing-tariffs-on-mexico-225116">Central American families crossing the US-Mexico border </a>and turning themselves in to US authorities.

A threat of across-the-board tariffs on Mexican goods starting on Monday unless Mexico does more to stop migrants from reaching the United States has led to high-stakes negotiations between the two governments.

Trump has often described the situation as an "invasion" and an "onslaught," blaming it for crime and drugs entering the United States. But the issue of migration on the southwest border is complex and has evolved over the years. Here are answers to some commonly raised questions:&nbsp;

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE CROSSING THE BORDER?&nbsp;

In May, 132,887 people were apprehended at the southwest border, up 30% from April and 229% from May last year. The percentage of people crossing as families has risen even more dramatically.

IS IT REALLY A RECORD?

May was the highest monthly level of crossings since March 2006, but crossings are lower than at previous points in history. The main shift is in demographics. More than 63% of those apprehended in May were children and people travelling as families.

Until this year, arrests for illegal entry at the southwest border had been below half a million annually since 2009, the first time it was that low since 1973, according to government data.&nbsp;

WHY ARE OFFICIALS TALKING ABOUT AN `UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS`?

Previous peaks in illegal border crossings were driven by mainly single, adult Mexicans, and US authorities could return them quickly to Mexico with the use of relatively few resources.&nbsp;

The current surge is primarily families from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Many seek US asylum, which can take months or years because of crushing backlogs in the US immigration court system.&nbsp;

US authorities are limited by law to detaining children for 20 days, and the government lacks family detention space, so many are released into the United States. Since March 19, more than 75,000 family units have been released by Border Patrol.&nbsp;

But before they are released, Border Patrol has to process the families, and officials say their facilities are overwhelmed. A US government watchdog reported "dangerous" overcrowding at one border patrol facility in El Paso, Texas.&nbsp;

At least six minors have died while in US custody or shortly after being released within the past year.&nbsp;

WHAT IS DRIVING CENTRAL AMERICAN FAMILIES TO MIGRATE?

Migrants are fleeing violence, political turmoil and economic distress in their home countries. US officials say word has spread that the United States is releasing families.&nbsp;

Democrats in Washington have criticized Trump for cutting aid to the region in apparent retaliation for the flows of migrants, which they say exacerbates the problems and spurs people to flee.&nbsp;

In Guatemala, for example, one US assistance program under threat was established to keep farmers from abandoning the land and migrating north. 
&nbsp; 
WHAT EFFECT HAVE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES HAD?

Shortly after Trump took office in 2017 after a campaign focused on curbing illegal immigration, border apprehensions dropped dramatically, but they ticked back up by the end of the year.

Since then, many of the Trump administration policies aimed at reducing illegal entrants have run into legal hurdles.

The administration`s most divisive policy, "zero tolerance," was aimed at discouraging families by separating detained parents from their children. Worldwide condemnation forced the administration to quickly ditch the policy.

The administration has also tried to discourage migrants by making it more difficult to apply for asylum, but some measures have been blocked in the courts.

In January, the administration began a policy of sending some asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out their US court hearings. While a judge found the policy likely violated immigration law, it remains in place while the administration appeals the ruling.

Trump declared a national emergency to redirect $6.7 billion from the military and the Treasury to extend a border wall, but a federal judge blocked the initial funds.

HOW DOES TRUMP RESPONSE COMPARE WITH PAST ADMINISTRATIONS?

Trump has said Congress needs to act to update immigration laws that have been on the books through many administrations.

Prior administrations sought to boost assistance to migrants` countries of origin and also constructed barriers along the border.&nbsp;

Former officials have said Trump could adopt measures used by past administrations, including constructing temporary tent housing and beefing up technology. Where past administrations bolstered Border Patrol, resources are now needed in immigration courts, healthcare for migrants, logistics and to improve communication and coordination among agencies.

US President Donald Trump has made immigration a central theme of his administration but has grown increasingly frustrated with the ballooning numbers of mostly Central American families crossing the US-Mexico border and turning themselves in to US authorities.

US President Donald Trump has made immigration a central theme of his administration but has grown increasingly frustrated with the ballooning numbers of mostly Central American families crossing the US-Mexico border and turning themselves in to US authorities. A threat of across-the-board tariffs on Mexican goods starting on Monday unless Mexico does more to stop migrants from reaching the United States has led to high-stakes negotiations between the two governments. Trump has often described the situation as an "invasion" and an "onslaught," blaming it for crime and drugs entering the United States. But the issue of migration on the southwest border is complex and has evolved over the years. Here are answers to some commonly raised questions: HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE CROSSING THE BORDER? In May, 132,887 people were apprehended at the southwest border, up 30% from April and 229% from May last year. The percentage of people crossing as families has risen even more dramatically. IS IT REALLY A RECORD? May was the highest monthly level of crossings since March 2006, but crossings are lower than at previous points in history. The main shift is in demographics. More than 63% of those apprehended in May were children and people travelling as families. Until this year, arrests for illegal entry at the southwest border had been below half a million annually since 2009, the first time it was that low since 1973, according to government data. WHY ARE OFFICIALS TALKING ABOUT AN `UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS`? Previous peaks in illegal border crossings were driven by mainly single, adult Mexicans, and US authorities could return them quickly to Mexico with the use of relatively few resources. The current surge is primarily families from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Many seek US asylum, which can take months or years because of crushing backlogs in the US immigration court system. US authorities are limited by law to detaining children for 20 days, and the government lacks family detention space, so many are released into the United States. Since March 19, more than 75,000 family units have been released by Border Patrol. But before they are released, Border Patrol has to process the families, and officials say their facilities are overwhelmed. A US government watchdog reported "dangerous" overcrowding at one border patrol facility in El Paso, Texas. At least six minors have died while in US custody or shortly after being released within the past year. WHAT IS DRIVING CENTRAL AMERICAN FAMILIES TO MIGRATE? Migrants are fleeing violence, political turmoil and economic distress in their home countries. US officials say word has spread that the United States is releasing families. Democrats in Washington have criticized Trump for cutting aid to the region in apparent retaliation for the flows of migrants, which they say exacerbates the problems and spurs people to flee. In Guatemala, for example, one US assistance program under threat was established to keep farmers from abandoning the land and migrating north. WHAT EFFECT HAVE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES HAD? Shortly after Trump took office in 2017 after a campaign focused on curbing illegal immigration, border apprehensions dropped dramatically, but they ticked back up by the end of the year. Since then, many of the Trump administration policies aimed at reducing illegal entrants have run into legal hurdles. The administration`s most divisive policy, "zero tolerance," was aimed at discouraging families by separating detained parents from their children. Worldwide condemnation forced the administration to quickly ditch the policy. The administration has also tried to discourage migrants by making it more difficult to apply for asylum, but some measures have been blocked in the courts. In January, the administration began a policy of sending some asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out their US court hearings. While a judge found the policy likely violated immigration law, it remains in place while the administration appeals the ruling. Trump declared a national emergency to redirect $6.7 billion from the military and the Treasury to extend a border wall, but a federal judge blocked the initial funds. HOW DOES TRUMP RESPONSE COMPARE WITH PAST ADMINISTRATIONS? Trump has said Congress needs to act to update immigration laws that have been on the books through many administrations. Prior administrations sought to boost assistance to migrants` countries of origin and also constructed barriers along the border. Former officials have said Trump could adopt measures used by past administrations, including constructing temporary tent housing and beefing up technology. Where past administrations bolstered Border Patrol, resources are now needed in immigration courts, healthcare for migrants, logistics and to improve communication and coordination among agencies.

Explainer: How does the situation on the US-Mexico border compare with the past?

US congressional Democrats moved closer on Thursday to suing in federal court for access to the unredacted Mueller report on Russian election meddling, and its underlying evidence, taking a step bound to intensify their clash with President Donald Trump.

After months of stonewalling by Trump of their many investigations of him and his presidency, Democrats unveiled a resolution that authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to seek a court order to enforce its subpoenas against US Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

Both have refused to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee, which wants the unredacted report by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller on his probe into Russian election meddling and possible obstruction of the probe by Trump, and documents related to the investigation, as well as testimony from McGahn, a major player in the Mueller inquiry.

The resolution, which the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to consider on Tuesday, replaces an earlier plan by House lawmakers to vote formally on whether to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt of Congress, aides said.

Introduced by the House Rules Committee, the measure also sets out terms for possible court action by other House committees that are investigating the president and authorizes the Judiciary Committee to petition a federal judge for access to Mueller`s grand jury evidence.

The House Ways and Means Committee is similarly poised to file a federal lawsuit to enforce subpoenas of Trump`s individual and business tax returns.

Congressional committees already have the authority to seek court remedies. But Democratic aides said Tuesday`s vote is intended to reaffirm congressional authority to enforce subpoenas against White House efforts to stymie investigations by six separate House committees.

"We will not allow this president and his administration to turn a blind eye to the rule of law," Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern, who will take up the measure on Monday, said in a statement.

"The Trump administration is waging an unprecedented campaign of stonewalling and obstruction ... This resolution will allow Congress to hold the president accountable."

Justice Department officials were not immediately available to comment on the resolution.&nbsp;

The measure follows through on House Democrats` plans to go to court in their quest for an unredacted copy of Mueller`s report. Democrats say they are confident of swift court victories after decisive court rulings against Trump`s efforts to block subpoenas of his financial records issued by three other House panels.

Barr released a redacted version of the 448-page report on April 18. He later disregarded a House Judiciary Committee subpoena demanding release of the full report, along with the underlying evidence that Mueller relied on.

The House Judiciary panel voted on May 8 to cite Barr for contempt of Congress. The House Oversight Committee is also weighing contempt citations against Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for failing to comply with subpoenas in its probe of their handling of the US Census.

The Oversight panel had set a Thursday deadline for Barr and Ross to produce the requested documents.

In a letter to Cummings on Thursday, the Justice Department called a contempt vote "entirely premature" and declined to hand over the specific documents demanded, saying they were protected by attorney-client privilege and other doctrines. It said it was still working to produce other papers the committee requested.

The White House has asserted the seldom-used principle of executive privilege to try to keep the full Mueller report under wraps, even though Trump allowed aides to speak with Mueller during his investigation.

House Judiciary also subpoenaed McGahn, seeking his testimony, which he refused to provide in line with a pattern of stonewalling by Trump of Democrats` inquiries.

Lawmakers have said they would vote to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt. But on Thursday, aides said a formal contempt vote would have referred the case for criminal prosecution, a move unlikely to succeed with Barr at the helm of the Justice Department. Lawmakers instead opted for the new resolution.

US congressional Democrats moved closer on Thursday to suing in federal court for access to the unredacted Mueller report on Russian election meddling, and its underlying evidence, taking a step bound to intensify their clash with President Donald Trump.

US congressional Democrats moved closer on Thursday to suing in federal court for access to the unredacted Mueller report on Russian election meddling, and its underlying evidence, taking a step bound to intensify their clash with President Donald Trump. After months of stonewalling by Trump of their many investigations of him and his presidency, Democrats unveiled a resolution that authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to seek a court order to enforce its subpoenas against US Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Both have refused to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee, which wants the unredacted report by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller on his probe into Russian election meddling and possible obstruction of the probe by Trump, and documents related to the investigation, as well as testimony from McGahn, a major player in the Mueller inquiry. The resolution, which the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to consider on Tuesday, replaces an earlier plan by House lawmakers to vote formally on whether to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt of Congress, aides said. Introduced by the House Rules Committee, the measure also sets out terms for possible court action by other House committees that are investigating the president and authorizes the Judiciary Committee to petition a federal judge for access to Mueller`s grand jury evidence. The House Ways and Means Committee is similarly poised to file a federal lawsuit to enforce subpoenas of Trump`s individual and business tax returns. Congressional committees already have the authority to seek court remedies. But Democratic aides said Tuesday`s vote is intended to reaffirm congressional authority to enforce subpoenas against White House efforts to stymie investigations by six separate House committees. "We will not allow this president and his administration to turn a blind eye to the rule of law," Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern, who will take up the measure on Monday, said in a statement. "The Trump administration is waging an unprecedented campaign of stonewalling and obstruction ... This resolution will allow Congress to hold the president accountable." Justice Department officials were not immediately available to comment on the resolution. The measure follows through on House Democrats` plans to go to court in their quest for an unredacted copy of Mueller`s report. Democrats say they are confident of swift court victories after decisive court rulings against Trump`s efforts to block subpoenas of his financial records issued by three other House panels. Barr released a redacted version of the 448-page report on April 18. He later disregarded a House Judiciary Committee subpoena demanding release of the full report, along with the underlying evidence that Mueller relied on. The House Judiciary panel voted on May 8 to cite Barr for contempt of Congress. The House Oversight Committee is also weighing contempt citations against Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for failing to comply with subpoenas in its probe of their handling of the US Census. The Oversight panel had set a Thursday deadline for Barr and Ross to produce the requested documents. In a letter to Cummings on Thursday, the Justice Department called a contempt vote "entirely premature" and declined to hand over the specific documents demanded, saying they were protected by attorney-client privilege and other doctrines. It said it was still working to produce other papers the committee requested. The White House has asserted the seldom-used principle of executive privilege to try to keep the full Mueller report under wraps, even though Trump allowed aides to speak with Mueller during his investigation. House Judiciary also subpoenaed McGahn, seeking his testimony, which he refused to provide in line with a pattern of stonewalling by Trump of Democrats` inquiries. Lawmakers have said they would vote to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt. But on Thursday, aides said a formal contempt vote would have referred the case for criminal prosecution, a move unlikely to succeed with Barr at the helm of the Justice Department. Lawmakers instead opted for the new resolution.

US House Democrats move to fight Trump's stonewalling in court

us-1

Us, News on Us, stories on Us, articles on Us, Us stories at Wion, Us news, Us latest news

us 1