1UA TV

Beryl weakened to a tropical storm Saturday but is still expected to dump heavy rain over the Lesser Antilles at the end of the weekend on its way to the eastern Caribbean, bringing a new threat to islands still rebuilding from last year’s storms.

A tropical storm warning was issued for Dominica, which was battered by Hurricane Maria in September as a Category 5 storm. The island’s meteorological service said weather conditions would start deteriorating Saturday night and warned of six to 12 inches of rain, with the storm expected to cross over or near Dominica late Sunday or early Monday.

 Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said in a public address that the storm’s track and intensity could still change and urged people to remain alert.

 “They should not let their guard down,” he said.

 He also asked people to store water because he said the government would be shutting down the water system as a preventive measure.

A tropical storm watch was issued for the French Caribbean territories of Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Martin and St. Barts as well as the islands of Barbados, St. Lucia, Saba and St. Eustatius. Deeper into the Caribbean, a state of emergency was declared in Puerto Rico, where Maria caused more than an estimated $100 billion in damage.

Beryl was named the first hurricane of the Atlantic season Friday. At 11 a.m. Saturday, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said Beryl’s strength had diminished and it had maximum sustained winds of 65 mph (100 kph). It was centered 720 miles (1160 kilometers) east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles and was moving west at 14 mph (22 kph).

People in the Caribbean were taking no chances. Long lines were reported outside grocery stores on the islands of Dominica, Puerto Rico and elsewhere as people bought food and water. Among those stocking up was Sandra Whitcher, an owner of Coffeeriver Cottages in Dominica.

“Here’s hoping it misses us,” she said, adding that crews fortified the roofs on all seven cottages that survived Hurricane Maria. “I can’t say I’m not scared, but I know we have prepared as much as we can possibly do.”

Forecasters said Beryl is expected to weaken further after entering the Caribbean. It was expected to pass about 70 miles (113 kilometers) south of Puerto Rico on Monday, but forecasters warned the storm-wracked U.S. territory could see up to 30 mph winds and heavy rains that could cause flooding and mudslides.

Meteorologist Odalys Martinez said in a phone interview that conditions in Puerto Rico would deteriorate late Sunday, with up to 3 inches (8 centimeters) of rain possible.

“There is a lot of uncertainty,” she said.

 Forecasters said Beryl probably would dissipate once it moved south of Haiti and the Dominican Republic on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello declared a state of emergency for the island and suspended work on Monday.

Rossello told reporters the island would probably experience power outages, given that its electricity grid has become more vulnerable since Hurricane Maria. He said, however, that the recovery should be quicker since there are more power restoration crews and equipment on the island now.

The governor urged people without sturdy roofs to move to one of the 424 shelters that the government planned to open across the island. He recently noted that some 60,000 people still have only tarps for roofs.

“There are a lot of Puerto Ricans who are in a vulnerable position,” Rossello said. “We are keeping an eye on this minute by minute. It is not the moment to panic, but it’s the moment to prepare.”

Puerto Rico Health Secretary Rafael Rodriguez urged all those with serious health conditions, including diabetics, to seek shelter at health facilities, which have generators.

Meanwhile, a tropical depression formed in the Atlantic well off the North Carolina coast, but forecasters said there were no coastal watches or warnings in effect. The hurricane center said it would likely become a tropical storm Saturday night or Sunday and continue strengthening over the next few days.

At 11 a.m. EDT, the storm was centered about 150 miles (241 kilometers) south-southeast of Cape Hatteras with maximum sustained winds of 30 mph (48 kph). It was moving north-northwest at 2 mph (3 kph).

 
…

Beryl weakened to a tropical storm Saturday but is still expected to dump heavy rain over the Lesser Antilles at the end of the weekend on its way to the eastern Caribbean, bringing a new threat to islands still rebuilding from last year’s storms.

A tropical storm warning was issued for Dominica, which was battered by Hurricane Maria in September as a Category 5 storm. The island’s meteorological service said weather conditions would start deteriorating Saturday night and warned of six to 12 inches of rain, with the storm expected to cross over or near Dominica late Sunday or early Monday.

 Dominica Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit said in a public address that the storm’s track and intensity could still change and urged people to remain alert.

 “They should not let their guard down,” he said.

 He also asked people to store water because he said the government would be shutting down the water system as a preventive measure.

A tropical storm watch was issued for the French Caribbean territories of Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Martin and St. Barts as well as the islands of Barbados, St. Lucia, Saba and St. Eustatius. Deeper into the Caribbean, a state of emergency was declared in Puerto Rico, where Maria caused more than an estimated $100 billion in damage.

Beryl was named the first hurricane of the Atlantic season Friday. At 11 a.m. Saturday, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said Beryl’s strength had diminished and it had maximum sustained winds of 65 mph (100 kph). It was centered 720 miles (1160 kilometers) east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles and was moving west at 14 mph (22 kph).

People in the Caribbean were taking no chances. Long lines were reported outside grocery stores on the islands of Dominica, Puerto Rico and elsewhere as people bought food and water. Among those stocking up was Sandra Whitcher, an owner of Coffeeriver Cottages in Dominica.

“Here’s hoping it misses us,” she said, adding that crews fortified the roofs on all seven cottages that survived Hurricane Maria. “I can’t say I’m not scared, but I know we have prepared as much as we can possibly do.”

Forecasters said Beryl is expected to weaken further after entering the Caribbean. It was expected to pass about 70 miles (113 kilometers) south of Puerto Rico on Monday, but forecasters warned the storm-wracked U.S. territory could see up to 30 mph winds and heavy rains that could cause flooding and mudslides.

Meteorologist Odalys Martinez said in a phone interview that conditions in Puerto Rico would deteriorate late Sunday, with up to 3 inches (8 centimeters) of rain possible.

“There is a lot of uncertainty,” she said.

 Forecasters said Beryl probably would dissipate once it moved south of Haiti and the Dominican Republic on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello declared a state of emergency for the island and suspended work on Monday.

Rossello told reporters the island would probably experience power outages, given that its electricity grid has become more vulnerable since Hurricane Maria. He said, however, that the recovery should be quicker since there are more power restoration crews and equipment on the island now.

The governor urged people without sturdy roofs to move to one of the 424 shelters that the government planned to open across the island. He recently noted that some 60,000 people still have only tarps for roofs.

“There are a lot of Puerto Ricans who are in a vulnerable position,” Rossello said. “We are keeping an eye on this minute by minute. It is not the moment to panic, but it’s the moment to prepare.”

Puerto Rico Health Secretary Rafael Rodriguez urged all those with serious health conditions, including diabetics, to seek shelter at health facilities, which have generators.

Meanwhile, a tropical depression formed in the Atlantic well off the North Carolina coast, but forecasters said there were no coastal watches or warnings in effect. The hurricane center said it would likely become a tropical storm Saturday night or Sunday and continue strengthening over the next few days.

At 11 a.m. EDT, the storm was centered about 150 miles (241 kilometers) south-southeast of Cape Hatteras with maximum sustained winds of 30 mph (48 kph). It was moving north-northwest at 2 mph (3 kph).

 
…

Growing up in eastern China, Panshu Zhao fell in love with America. He read the Bible his parents gave him, watched Hollywood movies and studied the ideals of democracy. He jumped at the chance to attend graduate school at Texas A&M University.

In 2016, Zhao enlisted in the U.S. Army as part of a special recruitment program offering immigrants in the country legally a path to citizenship.

The future, he said, was bright.

Now, he is one of the dozens of immigrant recruits and reservists struggling with abrupt, often unexplained military discharges and canceled contracts. They traded being willing to risk their lives for the prospect of U.S. citizenship, a timeworn exchange that’s drawn linguists, medical specialists and thousands of other immigrants to the military since the Revolutionary War.

“It’s just like you’re dropped from heaven to hell,” Zhao told The Associated Press on Friday.

It is unclear how many men and women who enlisted through the special recruitment program have been ousted from the Army, but immigration attorneys told the AP that they know of more than 40 recruits who recently have been discharged or whose status has become questionable.

Some recruits say they were given no reason for their discharge. Others said the Army informed them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them.

The Pentagon said Friday that there has been no policy change since last year, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no one could enter basic training without completion of a background investigation.

And Army spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith said that any enlistee entering the military undergoes security screenings.

“Each recruit undergoes an individualized suitability review and the length of time for the review is dependent upon each individual’s unique background,” Smith said.

Zhao, 31, said his “ship out” date to basic training was delayed for two years as he underwent background checks, counterintelligence interviews and rigorous reviews added as requirements for immigrant enlistees.

He continued to pursue his PhD in geography at Texas A&M but also hit the gym, prepping for boot camp. And he trained — in uniform — with his unit. He had military identification and health care, he said.

In April, Zhao visited Washington, D.C., for the first time, touring the White House and visiting the Republican National Committee.

That same month, he got word from his unit commander: He was being discharged. He was told simply that his discharge was “uncharacterized,” he said.

“I’m not a national threat,” Zhao said. “On the contrast, I’m a national merit because people like me with higher education and critical skills, we want to serve this great U.S. Army. I’m a good scientist no matter what.”

The Pentagon announced last October that in order to apply for citizenship, immigrant recruits were required to have gone through basic training and served honorably for either 180 days or a year, depending on their Army classification. But that requirement has been challenged in court.

Some discharged service members whose basic training was delayed cannot start the naturalization process. Others who started the process have had their applications put on hold.

Immigration attorneys told the AP that many immigrants let go in recent weeks received an “uncharacterized discharge,” which is neither dishonorable nor honorable.

A Brazilian reservist, Lucas Calixto, filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., last week contending that he was booted without the Defense Department giving him a chance to defend himself or appeal.

President George W. Bush ordered “expedited naturalization” for immigrant soldiers in 2002 in an effort to swell military ranks. Seven years later, the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, known as MAVNI, became an official recruiting program.

The program came under fire from conservatives when President Barack Obama added DACA recipients — young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally — to the list of eligible enlistees. In response, the military layered on additional security clearances for recruits to pass before heading to boot camp.

Donald Trump’s administration added even more hurdles, creating a backlog within the Defense Department. Last fall, hundreds of recruits still in the enlistment process had their contracts canceled. A few months later, the military suspended MAVNI.

Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland, who has supported legislation to limit the program, told the AP that MAVNI was established by executive order.

“Our military must prioritize enlisting American citizens, and restore the MAVNI program to its specialized, limited scope,” he said.

According to Air Force Maj. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman, the “overwhelming majority” of MAVNI candidates are from Asia and Africa because those are the critical language skills needed in the military.

As of April, 1,100 immigrant recruits were awaiting basic training while undergoing security reviews, the Pentagon said.

Eligible recruits are required to have legal status in the U.S., such as a student visa, before enlisting. More than 5,000 immigrants were recruited into the program in 2016, and an estimated 10,000 are currently serving. Most go the Army, but some also go to the other military branches.

Zhao is now rethinking his future, but said he wishes he had a chance to appeal.

“I need justice,” he said. “This is America. This is not China. This is not the Middle East. This is not a dictatorship. And that’s why I love America.”
…

Growing up in eastern China, Panshu Zhao fell in love with America. He read the Bible his parents gave him, watched Hollywood movies and studied the ideals of democracy. He jumped at the chance to attend graduate school at Texas A&M University.

In 2016, Zhao enlisted in the U.S. Army as part of a special recruitment program offering immigrants in the country legally a path to citizenship.

The future, he said, was bright.

Now, he is one of the dozens of immigrant recruits and reservists struggling with abrupt, often unexplained military discharges and canceled contracts. They traded being willing to risk their lives for the prospect of U.S. citizenship, a timeworn exchange that’s drawn linguists, medical specialists and thousands of other immigrants to the military since the Revolutionary War.

“It’s just like you’re dropped from heaven to hell,” Zhao told The Associated Press on Friday.

It is unclear how many men and women who enlisted through the special recruitment program have been ousted from the Army, but immigration attorneys told the AP that they know of more than 40 recruits who recently have been discharged or whose status has become questionable.

Some recruits say they were given no reason for their discharge. Others said the Army informed them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them.

The Pentagon said Friday that there has been no policy change since last year, when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said no one could enter basic training without completion of a background investigation.

And Army spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith said that any enlistee entering the military undergoes security screenings.

“Each recruit undergoes an individualized suitability review and the length of time for the review is dependent upon each individual’s unique background,” Smith said.

Zhao, 31, said his “ship out” date to basic training was delayed for two years as he underwent background checks, counterintelligence interviews and rigorous reviews added as requirements for immigrant enlistees.

He continued to pursue his PhD in geography at Texas A&M but also hit the gym, prepping for boot camp. And he trained — in uniform — with his unit. He had military identification and health care, he said.

In April, Zhao visited Washington, D.C., for the first time, touring the White House and visiting the Republican National Committee.

That same month, he got word from his unit commander: He was being discharged. He was told simply that his discharge was “uncharacterized,” he said.

“I’m not a national threat,” Zhao said. “On the contrast, I’m a national merit because people like me with higher education and critical skills, we want to serve this great U.S. Army. I’m a good scientist no matter what.”

The Pentagon announced last October that in order to apply for citizenship, immigrant recruits were required to have gone through basic training and served honorably for either 180 days or a year, depending on their Army classification. But that requirement has been challenged in court.

Some discharged service members whose basic training was delayed cannot start the naturalization process. Others who started the process have had their applications put on hold.

Immigration attorneys told the AP that many immigrants let go in recent weeks received an “uncharacterized discharge,” which is neither dishonorable nor honorable.

A Brazilian reservist, Lucas Calixto, filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., last week contending that he was booted without the Defense Department giving him a chance to defend himself or appeal.

President George W. Bush ordered “expedited naturalization” for immigrant soldiers in 2002 in an effort to swell military ranks. Seven years later, the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, known as MAVNI, became an official recruiting program.

The program came under fire from conservatives when President Barack Obama added DACA recipients — young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally — to the list of eligible enlistees. In response, the military layered on additional security clearances for recruits to pass before heading to boot camp.

Donald Trump’s administration added even more hurdles, creating a backlog within the Defense Department. Last fall, hundreds of recruits still in the enlistment process had their contracts canceled. A few months later, the military suspended MAVNI.

Republican Congressman Andy Harris of Maryland, who has supported legislation to limit the program, told the AP that MAVNI was established by executive order.

“Our military must prioritize enlisting American citizens, and restore the MAVNI program to its specialized, limited scope,” he said.

According to Air Force Maj. Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman, the “overwhelming majority” of MAVNI candidates are from Asia and Africa because those are the critical language skills needed in the military.

As of April, 1,100 immigrant recruits were awaiting basic training while undergoing security reviews, the Pentagon said.

Eligible recruits are required to have legal status in the U.S., such as a student visa, before enlisting. More than 5,000 immigrants were recruited into the program in 2016, and an estimated 10,000 are currently serving. Most go the Army, but some also go to the other military branches.

Zhao is now rethinking his future, but said he wishes he had a chance to appeal.

“I need justice,” he said. “This is America. This is not China. This is not the Middle East. This is not a dictatorship. And that’s why I love America.”
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The announcement is likely to set off a major confirmation battle in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority and opposition Democrats say they are ready for a fight over Trump’s court pick.

In his weekly presidential address, Trump said his “greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written.” The president vowed to select someone with “impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution.”

During a campaign rally in Montana Thursday, Trump sought to build expectations among supporters for his nominee.

“As you know there is now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And if you tune in Monday at 9 o’clock I think you are going to be extremely happy with the selection. Right? And they are all great. They are all great,” Trump said to cheers at a rally in Great Falls, Montana.

WATCH: Trump to Unveil Court Pick Monday

Democrats mobilize

Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote in a number of high-profile cases, including same-sex marriage and upholding a woman’s right to an abortion.

Democrats have vowed to resist a nominee who could swing the high court further to the right.

“So it makes it all the more important that we get someone who is going to be a person of integrity and someone who is going to make a decision based on precedent, based on the rule of law, and not someone who is ideological,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

The Kennedy void

Legal analysts noted that Kennedy’s departure leaves a critical void on the high court.

“He leaves the court in a calcified state of a hardened left and right with nobody in that middle position,” said George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. 

Trump said he has narrowed his choice to three or four contenders. Among those believed to be on the short list are federal appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.

Kennedy was often a member of five-to-four majority decisions on the high court, and now conservatives see a chance to solidify their majority on the Supreme Court for years to come.

“I think many on the right feel in particular that Anthony Kennedy, while broadly on the conservative side, was not as consistent as he might have been, and that the nominee of Donald Trump will have the court be much more consistently five votes in the conservative direction,” said John Fortier with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Rightward shift

Analysts also predict that a firmly conservative nominee will spark a high stakes political battle in the Senate.

“I think that we probably have never seen an appointment process that will be as contentious as this one given the importance of Kennedy’s position on the court and the increasingly polarized state of the nation,” said George Washington University legal analyst Paul Schiff Berman via Skype.

A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that 31 percent of voters believe Trump’s nominee should make the high court more conservative. Twenty-nine percent want the pick to make the court more liberal and 35 percent said the appointment should keep the current balance on the court.

The survey also found that by a margin of 50 percent to 42 percent, Americans believe the Supreme Court is more motivated by politics than the law.

Trump’s nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow 51- to 49-seat majority. A handful of Senate Democrats running for re-election in states that Trump won handily in 2016 could face a difficult vote on the court nominee. They could provide Republicans with an additional buffer if they decide to support the president.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The announcement is likely to set off a major confirmation battle in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority and opposition Democrats say they are ready for a fight over Trump’s court pick.

In his weekly presidential address, Trump said his “greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written.” The president vowed to select someone with “impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution.”

During a campaign rally in Montana Thursday, Trump sought to build expectations among supporters for his nominee.

“As you know there is now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And if you tune in Monday at 9 o’clock I think you are going to be extremely happy with the selection. Right? And they are all great. They are all great,” Trump said to cheers at a rally in Great Falls, Montana.

WATCH: Trump to Unveil Court Pick Monday

Democrats mobilize

Anthony Kennedy was a critical swing vote in a number of high-profile cases, including same-sex marriage and upholding a woman’s right to an abortion.

Democrats have vowed to resist a nominee who could swing the high court further to the right.

“So it makes it all the more important that we get someone who is going to be a person of integrity and someone who is going to make a decision based on precedent, based on the rule of law, and not someone who is ideological,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

The Kennedy void

Legal analysts noted that Kennedy’s departure leaves a critical void on the high court.

“He leaves the court in a calcified state of a hardened left and right with nobody in that middle position,” said George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley. 

Trump said he has narrowed his choice to three or four contenders. Among those believed to be on the short list are federal appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar.

Kennedy was often a member of five-to-four majority decisions on the high court, and now conservatives see a chance to solidify their majority on the Supreme Court for years to come.

“I think many on the right feel in particular that Anthony Kennedy, while broadly on the conservative side, was not as consistent as he might have been, and that the nominee of Donald Trump will have the court be much more consistently five votes in the conservative direction,” said John Fortier with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

Rightward shift

Analysts also predict that a firmly conservative nominee will spark a high stakes political battle in the Senate.

“I think that we probably have never seen an appointment process that will be as contentious as this one given the importance of Kennedy’s position on the court and the increasingly polarized state of the nation,” said George Washington University legal analyst Paul Schiff Berman via Skype.

A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that 31 percent of voters believe Trump’s nominee should make the high court more conservative. Twenty-nine percent want the pick to make the court more liberal and 35 percent said the appointment should keep the current balance on the court.

The survey also found that by a margin of 50 percent to 42 percent, Americans believe the Supreme Court is more motivated by politics than the law.

Trump’s nominee must be confirmed by the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow 51- to 49-seat majority. A handful of Senate Democrats running for re-election in states that Trump won handily in 2016 could face a difficult vote on the court nominee. They could provide Republicans with an additional buffer if they decide to support the president.
…

The Pentagon says “there is no new policy” concerning immigrants who wish to join the U.S. military, after the Associated Press reported some immigrant reservists and recruits were being “abruptly discharged” from the Army.

“Any recruit … who receives an unfavorable security screening is deemed unsuitable for military service and is administratively discharged,” Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Nina Hill said Friday.

Hill added that each recruit undergoes reviews “dependent upon each individual’s unique background.” The Army, however, could not provide VOA with specific details of individuals’ security checks due to privacy laws.

The discharged recruits and reservists cited in the Associated Press report were all enlisted in recent years under a special program targeting non-U.S. citizens called the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, also known as MAVNI.

The program, aimed at bringing medical specialists and language specialists into the military, was ended in September 2017. However, hundreds of MAVNI recruits who were still in the process of joining the military at that time were to be “grandfathered in” if they passed appropriate security checks, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Maj. Carla Gleason.

“There is no new policy,” Gleason added.

Foreign nationals must complete security screening, basic military training and 180 days of “honorable service” before they can become naturalized U.S. citizens. Those in the reserve components of the military must complete security screening, basic military training and one year of honorable service before they can become naturalized.

Since 2009, more than 10,000 non-U.S. citizens have joined or signed contracts to join the military through the MAVNI program. As of April this year, about 1,100 of those MAVNI recruits were still in the Army’s delayed entry program, a process where individuals sign an enlistment agreement but are not yet service members.

A U.S. defense official told VOA and other reporters that the hundreds constituting this final group of MAVNI recruits likely could include those with backgrounds that are more difficult to clear through security.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the discharge of approximately 40 immigrant recruits from the Army as reported by the AP was part of a “normal process” and would “likely keep happening” as the final MAVNI recruits are assessed.

Service members in the U.S. military come from more than 240 countries and territories, according to Defense Department data from December 2017.

The Associated Press spoke with discharged reservist Lucas Calixto, a Brazilian immigrant who said, “It was my dream to serve in the military. Since this country has been so good to me, I thought it was the least I could do to give back to my adopted country and serve in the United States military.”

Some of the service members told the Associated Press their discharges were left unexplained. Others who pressed for answers said the Army informed them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them, according to the AP.
…

The Pentagon says “there is no new policy” concerning immigrants who wish to join the U.S. military, after the Associated Press reported some immigrant reservists and recruits were being “abruptly discharged” from the Army.

“Any recruit … who receives an unfavorable security screening is deemed unsuitable for military service and is administratively discharged,” Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Nina Hill said Friday.

Hill added that each recruit undergoes reviews “dependent upon each individual’s unique background.” The Army, however, could not provide VOA with specific details of individuals’ security checks due to privacy laws.

The discharged recruits and reservists cited in the Associated Press report were all enlisted in recent years under a special program targeting non-U.S. citizens called the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, also known as MAVNI.

The program, aimed at bringing medical specialists and language specialists into the military, was ended in September 2017. However, hundreds of MAVNI recruits who were still in the process of joining the military at that time were to be “grandfathered in” if they passed appropriate security checks, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Maj. Carla Gleason.

“There is no new policy,” Gleason added.

Foreign nationals must complete security screening, basic military training and 180 days of “honorable service” before they can become naturalized U.S. citizens. Those in the reserve components of the military must complete security screening, basic military training and one year of honorable service before they can become naturalized.

Since 2009, more than 10,000 non-U.S. citizens have joined or signed contracts to join the military through the MAVNI program. As of April this year, about 1,100 of those MAVNI recruits were still in the Army’s delayed entry program, a process where individuals sign an enlistment agreement but are not yet service members.

A U.S. defense official told VOA and other reporters that the hundreds constituting this final group of MAVNI recruits likely could include those with backgrounds that are more difficult to clear through security.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the discharge of approximately 40 immigrant recruits from the Army as reported by the AP was part of a “normal process” and would “likely keep happening” as the final MAVNI recruits are assessed.

Service members in the U.S. military come from more than 240 countries and territories, according to Defense Department data from December 2017.

The Associated Press spoke with discharged reservist Lucas Calixto, a Brazilian immigrant who said, “It was my dream to serve in the military. Since this country has been so good to me, I thought it was the least I could do to give back to my adopted country and serve in the United States military.”

Some of the service members told the Associated Press their discharges were left unexplained. Others who pressed for answers said the Army informed them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because the Defense Department had not completed background checks on them, according to the AP.
…

Lawyers for Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, say their client has been in solitary confinement as he awaits trial on financial charges.

The lawyers say Manafort is locked in a jail cell in Virginia for 23 hours a day, excluding visits from his attorneys, and has been in solitary confinement because the facility can’t guarantee his safety.

Manafort was jailed last month after a federal judge revoked his house arrest over allegations of witness tampering in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

His lawyers are asking a federal appeals court to overturn the judge’s order and release him under certain conditions as he awaits trial later this month in Alexandria, Virginia, and later this fall in Washington, D.C.

The lawyers say his detention makes it “effectively impossible” for Manafort to prepare for trial. They also say U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Manafort’s case in Washington and who ordered him to jail, did not analyze carefully enough whether Manafort had actually committed witness tampering.

“Independently, the alleged evidence of obstruction is so thin that it cannot reasonably support the determination that no set of conditions could ensure Mr. Manafort’s appearance and the safety of the community,” Thursday’s court filing states.

Manafort is one of four Trump campaign or White House aides to have been charged in Mueller’s investigation. Three others — George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Rick Gates — have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

Separately Friday, Manafort’s lawyers asked for his upcoming trial in Virginia to be moved to Roanoke — much farther away from Washington — because of pretrial publicity.

“A simple Google search for articles about Russian collusion shows 2,900,000 results. As the Court has pointed out, public interest in this case is far beyond what the Court would expect,” the lawyers wrote. “In fact, the amount of media coverage of the Special Counsel’s investigations is astounding.”

Of the articles about Manafort, they say, “one is hard pressed to find any that are not unfavorable” to him.
…

Lawyers for Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, say their client has been in solitary confinement as he awaits trial on financial charges.

The lawyers say Manafort is locked in a jail cell in Virginia for 23 hours a day, excluding visits from his attorneys, and has been in solitary confinement because the facility can’t guarantee his safety.

Manafort was jailed last month after a federal judge revoked his house arrest over allegations of witness tampering in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

His lawyers are asking a federal appeals court to overturn the judge’s order and release him under certain conditions as he awaits trial later this month in Alexandria, Virginia, and later this fall in Washington, D.C.

The lawyers say his detention makes it “effectively impossible” for Manafort to prepare for trial. They also say U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over Manafort’s case in Washington and who ordered him to jail, did not analyze carefully enough whether Manafort had actually committed witness tampering.

“Independently, the alleged evidence of obstruction is so thin that it cannot reasonably support the determination that no set of conditions could ensure Mr. Manafort’s appearance and the safety of the community,” Thursday’s court filing states.

Manafort is one of four Trump campaign or White House aides to have been charged in Mueller’s investigation. Three others — George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Rick Gates — have pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with investigators.

Separately Friday, Manafort’s lawyers asked for his upcoming trial in Virginia to be moved to Roanoke — much farther away from Washington — because of pretrial publicity.

“A simple Google search for articles about Russian collusion shows 2,900,000 results. As the Court has pointed out, public interest in this case is far beyond what the Court would expect,” the lawyers wrote. “In fact, the amount of media coverage of the Special Counsel’s investigations is astounding.”

Of the articles about Manafort, they say, “one is hard pressed to find any that are not unfavorable” to him.
…

So is this what a trade war looks like?

The Trump administration and China’s leadership have imposed tens of billions of dollars in tariffs on each other’s goods. President Donald Trump has proposed slapping duties on, all told, up to $550 billion if China keeps retaliating and doesn’t cave in to U.S. demands to scale back its aggressive industrial policies.

Until the past couple of years, tariffs had been losing favor as a tool of national trade policy. They were largely a relic of 19th and early 20th centuries that most experts viewed as mutually harmful to all nations involved. But Trump has restored tariffs to a prominent place in his self-described America First approach.

Trump enraged such U.S. allies as Canada, Mexico and the European Union this spring by slapping tariffs on their steel and aluminum shipments to the United States. The tariffs have been in place on most other countries since March.

The president has also asked the U.S. Commerce Department to look into imposing tariffs on imported cars, trucks and auto parts, arguing that they pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Here is a look at what tariffs are, how they work, how they’ve been used in the past and what to expect now: 

Are we in a trade war?

Economists have no set definition of a trade war. But with the world’s two largest economies now slapping potentially punishing tariffs on each other, it looks as if a trade war has arrived. The value of goods that Trump has threatened to hit with tariffs exceeds the $506 billion in goods that China exported to the United States last year. 

It’s not uncommon for countries, even close allies, to fight over trade in specific products. The United States and Canada, for example, have squabbled for decades over softwood lumber. 

But the U.S. and China are fighting over much broader issues, like China’s requirements that American companies share advanced technology to access China’s market, and the overall U.S. trade deficit with China. So far, neither side has shown any sign of bending.

​So what are tariffs?

Tariffs are a tax on imports. They’re typically charged as a percentage of the transaction price that a buyer pays a foreign seller. Say an American retailer buys 100 garden umbrellas from China for $5 apiece, or $500. The U.S. tariff rate for the umbrellas is 6.5 percent. The retailer would have to pay a $32.50 tariff on the shipment, raising the total price from $500 to $532.50.

In the United States, tariffs — also called duties or levies — are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. Proceeds go to the Treasury. The tariff rates are published by the U.S. International Trade Commission in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which lists U.S. tariffs on everything from dried plantains (1.4 percent) to parachutes (3 percent).

Sometimes, the U.S. will impose additional duties on foreign imports that it determines are being sold at unfairly low prices or are being supported by foreign government subsidies. 

Do other countries have higher tariffs than the United States?

Most key U.S. trading partners do not have significantly higher average tariffs. According to an analysis by Greg Daco at Oxford Economics, U.S. tariffs on imported goods, adjusted for trade volumes, average 2.4 percent, above Japan’s 2 percent and just below the 3 percent for the European Union and 3.1 percent for Canada.

The comparable figures for Mexico and China are higher. Both have higher duties that top 4 percent.

Trump has complained about the 270 percent duty that Canada imposes on dairy products. But the United States has its own ultra-high tariffs — 168 percent on peanuts and 350 percent on tobacco.

​What are tariffs supposed to accomplish?

Two things: Raise government revenue and protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Before the establishment of the federal income tax in 1913, tariffs were a big money-raiser for the U.S. government. From 1790 to 1860, for example, they produced 90 percent of federal revenue, according to Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy by Douglas Irwin, an economist at Dartmouth College. By contrast, last year tariffs accounted for only about 1 percent of federal revenue.

In the fiscal year that ended last September 30, the U.S. government collected $34.6 billion in customs duties and fees. The White House Office of Management and Budget expects tariffs to fetch $40.4 billion this year.

Tariffs also are meant to increase the price of imports or to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters and dumping their products at unfairly low prices. Tariffs discourage imports by making them more expensive. They also reduce competitive pressure on domestic competitors and can allow them to raise prices.

Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade expanded after World War II.

The formation of the World Trade Organization and the advent of trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement among the U.S., Mexico and Canada reduced or eliminated tariffs. 

​Why are tariffs making a comeback?

After years of trade agreements that bound the countries of the world more closely and erased restrictions on trade, a populist backlash has grown against globalization. This was evident in Trump’s 2016 election and the British vote that year to leave the European Union — both surprise setbacks for the free-trade establishment.

Critics note that big corporations in rich countries exploited looser rules to move factories to China and other low-wage countries, then shipped goods back to their wealthy home countries while paying low tariffs or none at all. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the United States has shed 3.1 million factory jobs, though many economists attribute much of that loss not just to trade but to robots and other technologies that replace human workers.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to rewrite trade agreements and crack down on China, Mexico and other countries. He blames what he calls their abusive trade policies for America’s persistent trade deficits — $566 billion last year. Most economists, by contrast, say the deficit simply reflects the reality that the United States spends more than it saves. By imposing tariffs, he is beginning to turn his hard-line campaign rhetoric into action.

Are tariffs wise?

Most economists — Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro is a notable exception — say no. The tariffs drive up the cost of imports. And by reducing competitive pressure, they give U.S. producers leeway to raise their prices, too. That’s good for those producers, but bad for almost everyone else.

Rising costs especially hurt consumers and companies that rely on imported components. Some U.S. companies that buy steel are complaining that Trump’s tariffs put them at a competitive disadvantage. Their foreign rivals can buy steel more cheaply and offer their products at lower prices.

More broadly, economists say trade restrictions make the economy less efficient. Facing less competition from abroad, domestic companies lose the incentive to increase efficiency or to focus on what they do best. 
…

So is this what a trade war looks like?

The Trump administration and China’s leadership have imposed tens of billions of dollars in tariffs on each other’s goods. President Donald Trump has proposed slapping duties on, all told, up to $550 billion if China keeps retaliating and doesn’t cave in to U.S. demands to scale back its aggressive industrial policies.

Until the past couple of years, tariffs had been losing favor as a tool of national trade policy. They were largely a relic of 19th and early 20th centuries that most experts viewed as mutually harmful to all nations involved. But Trump has restored tariffs to a prominent place in his self-described America First approach.

Trump enraged such U.S. allies as Canada, Mexico and the European Union this spring by slapping tariffs on their steel and aluminum shipments to the United States. The tariffs have been in place on most other countries since March.

The president has also asked the U.S. Commerce Department to look into imposing tariffs on imported cars, trucks and auto parts, arguing that they pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Here is a look at what tariffs are, how they work, how they’ve been used in the past and what to expect now: 

Are we in a trade war?

Economists have no set definition of a trade war. But with the world’s two largest economies now slapping potentially punishing tariffs on each other, it looks as if a trade war has arrived. The value of goods that Trump has threatened to hit with tariffs exceeds the $506 billion in goods that China exported to the United States last year. 

It’s not uncommon for countries, even close allies, to fight over trade in specific products. The United States and Canada, for example, have squabbled for decades over softwood lumber. 

But the U.S. and China are fighting over much broader issues, like China’s requirements that American companies share advanced technology to access China’s market, and the overall U.S. trade deficit with China. So far, neither side has shown any sign of bending.

​So what are tariffs?

Tariffs are a tax on imports. They’re typically charged as a percentage of the transaction price that a buyer pays a foreign seller. Say an American retailer buys 100 garden umbrellas from China for $5 apiece, or $500. The U.S. tariff rate for the umbrellas is 6.5 percent. The retailer would have to pay a $32.50 tariff on the shipment, raising the total price from $500 to $532.50.

In the United States, tariffs — also called duties or levies — are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country. Proceeds go to the Treasury. The tariff rates are published by the U.S. International Trade Commission in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which lists U.S. tariffs on everything from dried plantains (1.4 percent) to parachutes (3 percent).

Sometimes, the U.S. will impose additional duties on foreign imports that it determines are being sold at unfairly low prices or are being supported by foreign government subsidies. 

Do other countries have higher tariffs than the United States?

Most key U.S. trading partners do not have significantly higher average tariffs. According to an analysis by Greg Daco at Oxford Economics, U.S. tariffs on imported goods, adjusted for trade volumes, average 2.4 percent, above Japan’s 2 percent and just below the 3 percent for the European Union and 3.1 percent for Canada.

The comparable figures for Mexico and China are higher. Both have higher duties that top 4 percent.

Trump has complained about the 270 percent duty that Canada imposes on dairy products. But the United States has its own ultra-high tariffs — 168 percent on peanuts and 350 percent on tobacco.

​What are tariffs supposed to accomplish?

Two things: Raise government revenue and protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Before the establishment of the federal income tax in 1913, tariffs were a big money-raiser for the U.S. government. From 1790 to 1860, for example, they produced 90 percent of federal revenue, according to Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy by Douglas Irwin, an economist at Dartmouth College. By contrast, last year tariffs accounted for only about 1 percent of federal revenue.

In the fiscal year that ended last September 30, the U.S. government collected $34.6 billion in customs duties and fees. The White House Office of Management and Budget expects tariffs to fetch $40.4 billion this year.

Tariffs also are meant to increase the price of imports or to punish foreign countries for committing unfair trade practices, like subsidizing their exporters and dumping their products at unfairly low prices. Tariffs discourage imports by making them more expensive. They also reduce competitive pressure on domestic competitors and can allow them to raise prices.

Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade expanded after World War II.

The formation of the World Trade Organization and the advent of trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement among the U.S., Mexico and Canada reduced or eliminated tariffs. 

​Why are tariffs making a comeback?

After years of trade agreements that bound the countries of the world more closely and erased restrictions on trade, a populist backlash has grown against globalization. This was evident in Trump’s 2016 election and the British vote that year to leave the European Union — both surprise setbacks for the free-trade establishment.

Critics note that big corporations in rich countries exploited looser rules to move factories to China and other low-wage countries, then shipped goods back to their wealthy home countries while paying low tariffs or none at all. Since China joined the WTO in 2001, the United States has shed 3.1 million factory jobs, though many economists attribute much of that loss not just to trade but to robots and other technologies that replace human workers.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to rewrite trade agreements and crack down on China, Mexico and other countries. He blames what he calls their abusive trade policies for America’s persistent trade deficits — $566 billion last year. Most economists, by contrast, say the deficit simply reflects the reality that the United States spends more than it saves. By imposing tariffs, he is beginning to turn his hard-line campaign rhetoric into action.

Are tariffs wise?

Most economists — Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro is a notable exception — say no. The tariffs drive up the cost of imports. And by reducing competitive pressure, they give U.S. producers leeway to raise their prices, too. That’s good for those producers, but bad for almost everyone else.

Rising costs especially hurt consumers and companies that rely on imported components. Some U.S. companies that buy steel are complaining that Trump’s tariffs put them at a competitive disadvantage. Their foreign rivals can buy steel more cheaply and offer their products at lower prices.

More broadly, economists say trade restrictions make the economy less efficient. Facing less competition from abroad, domestic companies lose the incentive to increase efficiency or to focus on what they do best. 
…

The Associated Press has learned that the U.S. Army has moved in recent weeks to discharge immigrant recruits and reservists who enlisted through a program that promised them a path to citizenship.

Some of these service members say they weren’t told why they were being discharged. Others say the Army told them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because their background checks were pending.

The AP was not able to ascertain how many service members who enlisted through the immigrant recruitment program have been booted out of the Army because of their immigrant status, but immigration attorneys said they were aware of more than 40 enlistees who have been discharged in recent weeks.

The Pentagon declined to comment because of a pending lawsuit.
…

The Associated Press has learned that the U.S. Army has moved in recent weeks to discharge immigrant recruits and reservists who enlisted through a program that promised them a path to citizenship.

Some of these service members say they weren’t told why they were being discharged. Others say the Army told them they’d been labeled as security risks because they have relatives abroad or because their background checks were pending.

The AP was not able to ascertain how many service members who enlisted through the immigrant recruitment program have been booted out of the Army because of their immigrant status, but immigration attorneys said they were aware of more than 40 enlistees who have been discharged in recent weeks.

The Pentagon declined to comment because of a pending lawsuit.
…