citizen

June 3 (UPI) — A 49-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen who pleaded guilty to charges of fighting U.S.-led coalition forces as an Islamic State militant has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison.

Lirim Sylejmani was sentenced Monday after pleading guilty in December to charges of receiving military training from ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

“The defendant will spend a decade in prison thinking about the betrayal to this country,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said in a statement.

Sylejmani and his family were detained by the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria on Feb. 27, 2019, as coalition fighters made their final advances on ISIS’ last caliphate in the country, which fell the next month.

He was then transferred to U.S. law enforcement on Sept. 15 the following year to face charges in the United States.

According to prosecutors, Sylejmani worked with ISIS from November 2015, when he moved from Kosovo to Syria to join the militant group, to the day of his capture.

Prosecutors said he changed his name to Abu Sulayman al-Kosovi and trained alongside other recruits to be an ISIS soldier following his arrival in the Middle Eastern country. His training included instruction on using AK-47 rifles, PK machine guns, M-16 rifles and grenades.

The Justice Department said he fought against the Syrian Democratic Forces and was wounded in battle, having been hit by shrapnel in the leg. Because of the injury, he was reassigned to a different battalion in the fall of 2017. Prosecutors said he was paid for his services by ISIS.

After being captured, Sylejmani spoke with various media outlets, telling NPR in late 2019 that he and his family arrived in Syria via Canada. He said ISIS promised them free housing, electricity and water, but instead, they “starved” living under the caliphate.

“Anyone thinking that ISIS is the answer to their questions, best think again,” Pirro said. “We will go to any lengths to root out subversive individuals who want to overthrow the government and harm its citizens.”

May 25 (UPI) — An American citizen born in the United States was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers despite having a REAL ID. He was later released from custody after providing his Social Security number.

The incident was first reported by Noticias Telemundo, which obtained video footage of a raid that led to the arrest of 25-year-old Leonardo Garcia Venegas at a job site in Alabama.

The video shows ICE officers grabbing Venegas and putting handcuffs on him before someone off-camera yelled that he was a citizen. He told the broadcaster that authorities took his ID from his wallet before handcuffing him and dismissed it as fake.

“We all made sure we have the REAL ID and went through the protocols the administration is asking for,” his cousin Shelah Venegas said. “He has his REAL ID and then they see him and I guess because his English isn’t fluent and/or because he’s brown, it’s fake.”

Shelah Venegas, in a post to social media, alleged that the federal authorities refused to let him identify himself and held him in handcuffs “for almost an hour” despite him yelling that he was a citizen.

The Department of Homeland Security alleged in a statement to NBC News that Garcia had interfered with an arrest that was being carried out at the job site.

“He physically got in between agents and the subject they were attempting to arrest and refused to comply with numerous verbal commands,” said Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary.

The brief video shared by Noticias Telemundo and Shelah Venegas on social media does not appear to show Leonardo Garcia Venegas getting between two agents as described.

“Anyone who actively obstructs law enforcement in the performance of their sworn duties, including U.S. citizens, will of course face consequences which include arrest,” McLaughlin said.

A spokesperson for the agency told Newsweek that “there was no mistake” made by authorities during the encounter.

Joseph Neumeyer, who is also a German citizen, approached the building on May 19 with Molotov cocktails, officials say.

A dual United States and German citizen has been arrested on charges that he travelled to Israel and attempted to firebomb the branch office of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, federal prosecutors in New York have said.

Israeli officials deported Joseph Neumeyer to New York on Saturday and he had an initial court appearance before a federal judge in Brooklyn on Sunday. His criminal complaint was unsealed on Sunday.

Prosecutors say Neumeyer walked up to the embassy building on May 19 with a backpack containing Molotov cocktails, but got into a confrontation with a guard and eventually ran away, dropping his backpack as the guard tried to detain him.

Law enforcement then tracked Neumeyer down to a hotel a few blocks away from the embassy and arrested him, according to a criminal complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York.

“This defendant is charged with planning a devastating attack targeting our embassy in Israel, threatening death to Americans, and [US] President [Donald] Trump’s life,” US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “The Department will not tolerate such violence and will prosecute this defendant to the fullest extent of the law.”

Neumeyer’s court-appointed attorney, Jeff Dahlberg, declined to comment.

The attack took place against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing deadly war on Gaza, now in its 19th month. Nearly 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in the blockaded enclave, where a famine is now looming as Israeli forces continue to seal vital border crossings and uphold a crippling blockade on humanitarian aid including food, medicine, and fuel.

Neumeyer, 28, who is originally from Colorado and has dual US and German citizenship, had travelled from the US to Canada in early February and then arrived in Israel in late April, according to court records.

He had made a series of threatening social media posts before attempting the attack, prosecutors said.

During his first term, Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital despite Palestinian objections, in a move that has not been recognised by the international community. He also moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

A United States citizen has been transferred to the US after being held for nearly six months in Venezuela.

The family of US Air Force veteran Joseph St Clair confirmed his release on Tuesday, following his detention in November of last year.

“This news came suddenly, and we are still processing it, but we are overwhelmed with joy and gratitude,” St Clair’s parents, Scott and Patti, said in a statement.

US President Donald Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell, later explained on social media that he had met with Venezuelan officials on the Caribbean island of Antigua to negotiate the release.

Grenell credited St Clair’s freedom to Trump’s “America First” political platform.

“Joe St. Clair is back in America,” he wrote. “I met Venezuelan officials in a neutral country today to negotiate an America First strategy. This is only possible because [Trump] puts Americans first. ”

Citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, the Reuters news agency reported that Grenell discussed St Clair’s case on Tuesday with Jorge Rodriguez, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly and an ally of President Nicolas Maduro.

Reuters and another news agency, Bloomberg, both reported that a deal was struck to extend a licence for the US oil company Chevron to operate in Venezuela by 60 days.

The Trump administration had previously announced it was revoking the licence in February, on the basis that Venezuela had not upheld its commitment to fair elections. The licence was due to end on May 27.

Any extension will likely need the approval of the US Department of State and the US Treasury.

The South American country relies on oil as the pillar of its economy. But since the mid-2010s, Venezuela has experienced an economic crisis that has pushed even basic supplies like food and medicine beyond what some families can afford.

That, combined with alleged political repression, has prompted an exodus of nearly 7.9 million people out of Venezuela, according to the United Nations.

In 2023, Venezuela committed to electoral reforms under the Barbados Agreement, a deal that the US applauded. Then-US President Joe Biden loosened restrictions on Venezuela’s oil industry in the aftermath of the agreement.

But Venezuela’s presidential election on July 28, 2024 was widely criticised for its lack of transparency. While Maduro and his allies claimed he had won a third term, the electoral authorities did not provide any proof of his victory.

Instead, the opposition coalition published voting tallies it said proved that its candidate had won by a landslide. That prompted widespread protests and a deadly crackdown from law enforcement.

During his first term in office, from 2017 to 2021, Trump had pursued a campaign of “maximum pressure” on Maduro’s government, even offering a $15m bounty for information that led to the Venezuelan leader’s arrest.

But critics have pointed out that Trump may need Venezuela’s cooperation to carry out his goal of “mass deportation” during his second term.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has signalled a willingness to negotiate with Maduro. In late January, he even sent Grenell to meet with Maduro in person in the capital of Caracas. Part of Grenell’s directive was to ensure all detained Americans in the country were returned home.

As Grenell left the country, he revealed he was returning with six Americans who had previously been imprisoned in Venezuela.

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio estimated that nine Americans remained in Venezuela’s custody.

Venezuela, for its part, has started to accept deportation flights from the US, although in the past it has refused to accept migrants removed from the US.

St Clair’s family has said that the military veteran was a language specialist who was seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in South America.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.