Connect with us

News

Canada to Send Asylum Seekers Back to United States

Published

on

United States and Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld an immigration agreement between the United States and Canada on Friday, stating that asylum applicants must apply in the nation where they first enter.

In an effort to stem the flow of asylum seekers across the common border, the United States and Canada agreed in 2002 to return migrants who go to an official Canadian crossing to the United States and tell them to apply there. The agreement was found valid by the Supreme Court.

“In my view, the record does not support the conclusion that the American detention regime is fundamentally unfair,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer in his ruling.

On behalf of a number of applicants, including an Ethiopian Muslim woman imprisoned after attempting to enter Canada from the United States, the Canadian Council for Refugees challenged the legitimacy of the 2002 agreement.

Lawyers had petitioned the Supreme Court to rule that the statute underlying the treaty violates the right to life, liberty, and security of person, claiming that the United States is not secure for many asylum seekers.

Those who arrive in Canada anywhere other than a port of entry, such as the centre at Roxham Road, were allowed to stay and seek shelter until a new arrangement was announced in March. This accord plugged a gap that had allowed thousands of asylum seekers to travel between the two nations via a back road connecting New York state and the Canadian province of Quebec. The decision also keeps that loophole closed.

canada

Canada’s Roxham Road

Since early 2017, so many migrants have strolled into Canada via Roxham Road near Champlain, New York, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have set up a welcome centre fewer than five miles (8 kilometres) from the official border crossing.

However, under a recently passed regulation, asylum seekers without US or Canadian citizenship who are apprehended within 14 days of crossing anywhere along the 3,145-mile (5,061-kilometer) border will be deported. This includes pedestrians on Roxham Road.

The deal signed in March by US President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau occurred as the US Border Patrol responded to a sharp spike in unlawful southbound crossings along the wide-open Canadian border.

The number of illegal border crossers into the United States from Canada is small in comparison to those entering the country illegally from Mexico, but there have been fatalities on the Canadian side of the border.

In a statement, Karen Musalo, director of the San Francisco-based Centre for Gender & Refugee Studies, said it was difficult to comprehend how the Canadian high court made its ruling because “by no objective assessment” is the United States safe for asylum seekers.

“The Biden administration has embraced policies that deprive refugees of their right to seek protection, resulting in their unlawful return to countries where they face persecution and torture,” according to the statement.

canada

Seeking Refuge in Canada

According to Amnesty International, the revised agreement makes it even more hazardous and unfair for people seeking refuge in Canada.

People seeking refuge in Canada come from various countries around the world and may be fleeing persecution, violence, war, or other forms of human rights abuses. Canada has a well-established refugee resettlement program and a legal framework to assess and process refugee claims.

The process for seeking refuge in Canada involves several steps:

1. Claiming asylum: Individuals who arrive in Canada and believe they are in need of protection can make a claim for refugee status. They must prove that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

2. Initial assessment: The claimant’s case is reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), an independent administrative tribunal. The claimant attends an interview to provide detailed information about their situation, and the IRB determines if there are reasonable grounds for the claim.

3. Refugee hearing: If the claimant’s case passes the initial assessment, a refugee hearing is scheduled. The claimant presents their case and provides evidence supporting their claim for refugee status. The IRB considers all the evidence and makes a decision.

4. Appeals process: If the claim is rejected, the claimant may have the option to appeal the decision to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) within the IRB. The RAD reviews the decision based on errors in law, fact, or mixed law and fact. Further appeals can be made to the Federal Court.

5. Resettlement and integration: If a claim for refugee status is approved, the person is granted refugee protection and is eligible to stay in Canada. They may receive resettlement assistance, including temporary housing, financial support, and access to essential services. The government and various organizations help refugees integrate into Canadian society by providing language training, employment support, and other settlement services.

Canada has a long history of accepting refugees and has been recognized as one of the leading countries in refugee resettlement. The government works closely with international organizations, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to identify and prioritize vulnerable individuals for resettlement.

It’s important to note that the specific policies and procedures related to refugee resettlement can evolve over time. For the most up-to-date and detailed information, it is recommended to consult the official website of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Geoff Thomas is a seasoned staff writer at VORNews, a reputable online publication. With his sharp writing skills and deep understanding of SEO, he consistently delivers high-quality, engaging content that resonates with readers. Thomas' articles are well-researched, informative, and written in a clear, concise style that keeps audiences hooked. His ability to craft compelling narratives while seamlessly incorporating relevant keywords has made him a valuable asset to the VORNews team.

Continue Reading

News

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Published

on

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Around 200 homeless people have died in the Indian capital in the last week as a result of the country’s ongoing heatwave, according to a group committed to assisting homeless people.

The Times of India reported on Thursday that 52 bodies had been brought to hospitals in the previous two days, with the majority of them being poor people who lived and worked outside.

Delhi Heatwave

According to the Centre for Holistic Development, 192 homeless individuals died in New Delhi between June 11 and June 19, which is more than the number reported in prior years.

“The poorest people face the brunt of such climate change. Most of these folks live beneath flyovers and in the open, with no protection from the heat. According to Sunil Kumar Aledia, the head of CHD, heatwaves were primarily to blame for these deaths.

VOR News

This summer, India reported over 40,000 suspected heatstroke cases and at least 110 verified deaths between March 1 and June 18, when northwest and eastern India had more than double the typical number of heatwave days.

“A prolonged summer should be classified as a natural disaster,” the Hindu newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday, citing water shortages and record power demand.

VOR News

The health ministry asked federal and state institutions to provide rapid care to patients, while hospitals were told to make more beds available.

The meteorological office has anticipated above-normal temperatures for this month as well, and Delhi experienced its warmest night in over 50 years on Wednesday, with a minimum temperature of 35.2°C (95°F), according to weather department data.

Temperatures in the capital fell nearly 6°C to 37°C (98.6°F) on Thursday as rain provided relief from the heat, according to weather service data.

 

Continue Reading

News

UAE Predicted to Become World’s Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

Published

on

UAE Predicted to Become World's Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

(CTN News) – The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report predicts that the UAE will become the world’s top wealth-attracting country for the third year in a row.

The survey, which was released earlier this week, expects an extraordinary inflow of 6,700 millionaires from all over the world by the end of 2024, CNBC reported.

The United States is trailing behind the UAE in second place, with an expected inflow of 3,800 millionaires by year end.

According to Henley, the analysis projects that 128,000 millionaires, or high-net-worth individuals with one million dollars or more, will relocate in 2024, breaking the previous record of 120,000 millionaires set last year, signaling a watershed moment in global wealth migration.

The analysis is based on data provided by the global wealth intelligence business, New World Wealth. It provides information on millionaires’ inflows and outflows, as well as their global mobility trends.

Why the UAE is a Top Choice for Millionaires

“This great millionaire migration is a canary in the coal mine, signaling a profound shift in the global landscape and tectonic plates of wealth and power, with far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of the nations they leave behind or those which they make their new home,” said Dominic Volek, director of private client services at Henley & Partners, an international law firm.

The UAE is becoming a popular choice for high-net-worth individuals worldwide, thanks to its favorable tax regulations, strategic location, and modern infrastructure.

The country offers a “golden visa” to attract foreign talent, intending to “provide long-term residence to investors, entrepreneurs, specialists, students, and researchers who make a significant investment in the country,” according to Henley & Partners.

People from the Middle East, India, Russia, Africa, and most recently, the anticipated migration from the United Kingdom and Europe, are driving an increase in migration to the UAE.

According to Henley & Partners, the top ten countries expecting the biggest net inflows of millionaires this year are listed below.

  • United Arab Emirates: +6,700
  • United States of America: +3,800
  • Singapore: +3,500
  • Canada: +3,200
  • Australia: +2,500
  • Italy: +2,200
  • Switzerland: +1,500
  • Greece: +1,200
  • Portugal: +800
  • Japan: +400
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Foreign Earnings TAX

Published

on

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump- Era Tax

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld an obscure tax established as part of Trump’s big 2017 reform package that targets U.S. taxpayers who own shares in certain foreign firms.

The Supreme Court concluded 7-2 that the so-called mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under Article I and the 16th Amendment, rejecting a lawsuit by a Washington couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, who claimed the provision violated the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, but by declining to overturn the tax, the justices avoided closing the door on Democrats’ proposals to levy taxes on the nation’s richest earnings. Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s analysis ignores the difficulties created by holdings, wealth, or net worth taxes, as well as appreciation taxes.

“Those are potential issues for another day, and we do not address or resolve any of those issues here,” the Supreme Court judge’s counsel wrote. “In the Moores’ instance, Congress has long taxed an entity’s shareholders on its undistributed revenue, as it did with the MRT. This Court has long sustained such taxes, and we continue to do so with the MRT.

The high court opinion is also expected to allay fears about the impact of a sweeping decision rejecting the required repatriation tax on other elements of the tax legislation. Kavanaugh acknowledged the potential repercussions of such a finding, stating that if the Moores’ argument is adopted, “vast swaths” of the Internal Revenue Code may be declared unconstitutional.

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue,” he wrote on behalf of the coalition. “The logical ramifications of the Moores’ thesis would thus oblige Congress to either dramatically slash important national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it—including, of course, ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not need such a fiscal disaster.”

Dan Greenberg, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which represented the Moores, expressed disappointment with the verdict, which allows the government to collect income taxes on overseas stockholders who have never earned income.

“We think that is unfair, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax people on their income, not the income of foreign businesses that they do not control,” according to a press release.

US Supreme Court

Supreme Court Moore v. U.S.

The tax at the center of the case, known as Moore v. U.S., is imposed one time on U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the measure after they were hit with a nearly $15,000 tax bill for 2017 as a result of the law, which required them to pay levies on their share of reinvested lifetime earnings from an India-based company called KisanKraft Tools.

The Moores had invested $40,000 in the company in 2006 in exchange for a 13% stake, and did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from it.

But the mandatory repatriation tax, enacted through the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, taxed U.S. taxpayers who owned at least 10% of a foreign company on their proportionate share of that company’s earnings after 1986. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Though KisanKraft reinvested its earnings in the years after its founding, rather than distributing dividends to shareholders, the tax still applied to the Moores.

The Moores paid, but filed a lawsuit against the federal government to obtain a refund and challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax.

A federal district court ruled for the government and dismissed the case, finding that the mandatory repatriation tax is permitted under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from “attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholders.” The 9th Circuit noted that courts have consistently upheld other similar taxes, and warned that finding the measure unconstitutional would call into question many other long-standing tax provisions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling and found that by 1938, its precedents had established a rule that contradicted the Moores’ argument in their case. That line of prior decisions, Kavanaugh wrote for the court, “remains good law to this day.”

Citing those earlier rulings and the similarities between the mandatory repatriation tax and other tax provisions, the court concluded that the measure “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in which she agreed with the outcome of the case, but split with the majority’s reasoning. Addressing the question that was before the court, Barrett said that the 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment to the states.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, Thomas said the Moores were correct in challenging the mandatory repatriation tax as unconstitutional. Because the couple never actually received gains from their investment, those unrealized gains couldn’t be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment, he wrote.

“The fact that the MRT has novel features does not mean that it is unconstitutional. But, the MRT is undeniably novel when compared to older income taxes, and many of those differences are constitutionally relevant,” he wrote. “Because the MRT is imposed merely based on ownership of shares in a corporation, it does not operate as a tax on income.”

Thomas criticized the majority over its concerns about the impact a broad decision would have on other longstanding taxes, writing that “if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, ‘the judicial power’ afforded to this court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape.”

He also rebuffed the majority’s contention that its ruling does not speak to the constitutionality of other taxes that may be passed by Congress, such as a wealth tax.

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future,” Thomas wrote. “But, if the court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

During oral arguments in December, the justices seemed sympathetic to concerns about how a sweeping ruling would reverberate across the U.S. tax system and threaten existing tax laws.

But some of the justices sought clarity on the limits of Congress’ taxing power. Lawyers for the Moores had warned the court that allowing a tax on income that has not yet been realized, or received, would pave the way for lawmakers to levy taxes on all manner of things, such as retirement accounts or gains in the value of real estate.

Justice Samuel Alito had faced pressure from some congressional Democrats to recuse himself from the case because of interviews he participated in with an editor at the Wall Street Journal and David Rivkin, a lawyer who represented the Moores.

The justice declined to step aside from the case, arguing there was “no valid reason” for him to do so.

Source: CBS News

 

 

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading

Trending